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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and provides useful behavioral detail: verification happens in code, signature is checked, outcome is inspected, and coverage must match exactly. It also notes the operation is free. It does not describe the return shape, but the non-mutating nature is implied.

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?

Two dense sentences with no fluff; the key usage instruction is front-loaded and every clause adds information. The parameter grouping is compact.

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 no-annotation tool with 8 optional-looking parameters and no output schema, it explains the required receipt hash-or-object plus context text and per-type parameters. It could be more explicit about return/error behavior, but the verification goal and input requirements are covered.

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 schema already documents every parameter (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters by receipt type (check, accept, skillcheck) and clarifying that verdict is optional, which is not obvious from the flat schema.

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?

Names a specific verb-resource pair ('Verify a crosscheck receipt') and spells out four concrete verification dimensions: issuer, signature validity, outcome, and text coverage. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that create or look up receipts.

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?

Tells the agent when to use it: before trusting work that arrives with a crosscheck receipt. It also maps which payload to pass for each receipt type, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use.

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