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

It discloses untrustedText for member-written content, clarifies that text is not instructions, and details pass handling, persistence of credentials, and header precedence. With no annotations, this provides comprehensive behavioral insight.

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 lengthy and repeats the pass configuration text that appears in the schema. While it front-loads the purpose, the security note is verbose and could be condensed.

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?

It describes the receipt contents and security considerations, but lacks explicit definition of postId and does not mention error scenarios. Given the absence of an output schema, it provides a reasonable overview but with gaps.

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?

The description explains the pass parameter in detail, but postId is left unexplained, and the pass explanation is duplicated in the schema. Since postId is required and lacks schema description, the tool description fails to add meaning for it.

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 states the tool returns 'the answer receipt for a post' containing signature, pass, and payment, which distinguishes it from verification tools like verify_receipt. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', making the action slightly implicit.

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 mentions verification can be done via /v1/keys or verify_receipt, implying this tool is for obtaining the receipt. It also gives guidance on pass configuration, but does not explicitly state when to use receipt over admission_receipt or other siblings.

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