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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the key behavioral caveat that the receipt 'Proves submission, not the act' — a meaningful limit on what the returned artifact attests. It also surfaces the two-step key provisioning flow. It omits retry/idempotency semantics despite the presence of client_event_id, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its output, then the auth flow, then the critical caveat. No filler, and the ordering matches the order an agent needs the information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the auth bootstrap plus attestation caveat are valuable. But for a 7-parameter write tool with zero schema descriptions, leaving nearly all parameter semantics undocumented is a real completeness gap.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries full burden, yet it only touches accept_terms and the returned key. Fields central to a correct call — action_type (the sole required param), outcome, summary, occurred_at, action_sha256, and client_event_id — get no explanation of format, expected values, or whether client_event_id is a dedupe key.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Records what your agent did') and adds the distinctive output ('tamper-evident, ledger-committed receipt'), which an agent can use to distinguish it from read-only ledger checks like ledger_verify. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, issue_rights_receipt, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives concrete onboarding guidance ('No key: send accept_terms:true, then send the returned key as a Bearer token'), which tells the agent how to bootstrap access. However, it never says when to record an action versus using issue_rights_receipt or when a record is unnecessary, leaving the selection decision implied.

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