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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses zero persistence, per-item result granularity, the three-layer trust verdict model, the $0.10 USDC cost per call, and no re-issuance. This gives an agent a strong sense of side effects, safety, and monetary implications.

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 three purposeful sentences: trigger scenario, input/output behavior, and constraints plus cost. It is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information and contains no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

The description covers the trigger, accepted inputs, output granularity, persistence behavior, cost, and safety constraints. With no output schema, it gives a useful but not exhaustive return preview ('three-layer trust verdicts'). It would benefit from stating that at least one of receipts or receipt_ids must be supplied, but it is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It maps receipt_ids to 'receipt IDs' and receipts to 'pasted receipt JSON,' which clarifies the two parameter families. It doesn't specify the exact receipt JSON shape or state whether at least one parameter is required, but it provides meaningful semantics absent from the 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?

The description names a specific action and resource: 'programmatic batch verification of governed settlement receipts.' It clearly identifies the intended user (auditor or compliance agent) and distinguishes this from the many get_* benchmark siblings by emphasizing it is a verification tool with a very specific receipt domain.

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 explicitly opens with 'Use when an auditor or compliance agent needs...', giving a clear trigger condition. It also adds a boundary with 'Read and verify only — no re-issuance,' which prevents misuse. It does not explicitly name alternative verification tools, but the batch scope and settlement-receipt focus make selection reasonably unambiguous.

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