Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail by explaining that txids are checked against an Algorand indexer unless onChain is false, though it does not describe failure or result semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two tightly written sentences with the core action and verification scope front-loaded. The second sentence cleanly explains input-mode selection, and every clause adds useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a verification tool with a nested receipt object and no output schema, the description covers the important invocation choices and on-chain verification behavior. The main remaining gap is that it does not explain what the verification result looks like, which matters more because no output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description still adds meaningful semantics by distinguishing orderId as this service's own orders from receipt as any receipt in the format, including one from another server.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: verify an ed25519-signed receipt. It also clarifies exactly what is verified, the signature and txids, and distinguishes the two input modes, so an agent can identify the tool's purpose immediately.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly explains when to use orderId versus a receipt object, including that the receipt object can verify any receipt in this format even from another server. It also clarifies the onChain:false condition, leaving little ambiguity about invocation modes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.