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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It does not say whether verification is read-only, what happens on an invalid signature (error vs. false), whether it needs a trusted public key, or whether it verifies only the signature or the full receipt contents.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 tool with a nested, undocumented parameter object, no annotations, and no output schema, a six-word description is inadequate. The agent lacks the receipt format, verification semantics, and failure behavior needed to invoke it confidently.

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 single parameter 'receipt' is a nested object with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining its expected shape, required fields, or encoding. An agent cannot tell what a valid receipt object looks like.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: verifying the signature on an exit receipt. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like exit_execute or exit_sweep, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to verify a receipt versus when to execute, probe, rejoin-check, or sweep. No preconditions (e.g., receipt must come from exit_execute) or sequencing relative to sibling tools is stated.

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