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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds non-obvious behavioral facts: it is free (no credits), it verifies two distinct conditions (signature authenticity AND manifest still current), and it detects stale/superseded documents. That is real context beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, cost, and proof semantics in the first two sentences; example prompts aid disambiguation. The inline Returns block slightly overlaps the existing output schema, but the overall structure is tight and earns its space.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema; the description covers purpose, source of input, cost, semantic guarantees, and audit context. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single receipt_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description need not add syntax. It does reinforce where the ID comes from (the receipt field of another tool's response), but that largely mirrors the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Independently verify a signed action receipt (rcpt_...)'. It names the exact source tools that produce receipts and contrasts implicitly with verify_bundle's bundle-level check, letting an agent route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly scopes the use case ('Use for third-party audit of an agent's prior actions') and names the four sibling tools whose responses supply the receipt_id, plus concrete example prompts. An agent knows exactly when and why to reach for this.

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