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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces read-only behavior while adding that the receipt 'checks out offline' and lists its contents. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss permissions or link lifetime.

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 sentences, front-loads the read-only nature, and includes only useful details about the receipt and offline verification. There is no redundant or filler language.

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?

The tool is simple, annotations are rich, and an output schema exists, so much of the behavioral and return-value context is already covered. However, the description omits any explanation of the required content_hash parameter, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for the single required content_hash parameter. It never mentions content_hash or explains its format, source, or relationship to the 'fingerprint' mentioned in the receipt contents.

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 clearly identifies the resource as the signed receipt of one sealed brief and enumerates the receipt contents, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as stempa_briefs, but the singular 'one SEALED brief' scope is reasonably clear.

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?

The phrase 'give the person the receipt link' provides a post-retrieval usage hint, and 'one SEALED brief' implies it applies only to sealed briefs. However, it does not state when to use this tool instead of siblings like stempa_briefs or how to obtain the required hash, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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