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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully reveals cost ($0.01), the signing scheme (Ed25519), portability, and the payment-first requirement. It does not mention return format or failure behavior, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded, with every sentence adding relevant information: cost, product, verification path, and usage sequence. There is no filler or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, verification, and invocation order. It could be more explicit about the exact output format and the expected values for ref and payment_tx, but it gives enough context for an agent to proceed.

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 must compensate. It hints that 'ref' is a ledger ref and that 'payment_tx' should be passed after paying, but it does not explain their formats, relationships, or why payment_tx is optional in the schema. This is partial compensation, not complete.

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 the tool produces a portable Ed25519-signed proof-of-delivery receipt for a ledger ref, which is specific and distinguishes it from the verify sibling. It lacks an explicit verb like 'create' or 'get', but the context and sibling names make the intended action 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 description gives clear operational guidance: pay first, then pass payment_tx, and verify free via khotem_receipt_verify. However, it does not explain when to use khotem_receipt instead of related tools like khotem_attest or khotem_seal, so some alternative-selection context is missing.

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