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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a gating operation requiring a verifying receipt, but it does not explain rejection behavior, side effects, permissions, or what happens on success.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves little structure for understanding the gate's conditions in detail.

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 tool has three parameters including nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should do more to explain inputs and expected behavior. It states the core gating concept but omits enough detail that an agent would struggle to invoke it correctly.

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 for undocumented parameters. It vaguely maps to 'receipt' and 'deliverable', but does not explain the receipt object shape, deliverable_hash, or task_spec, leaving most parameter semantics unclear.

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 recognizable verb and resource: accepting a deliverable via a gate, conditional on a verifying receipt. It is clearer than a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related siblings such as burn_verify.

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 phrase 'only with a verifying receipt' implies the required condition for use, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over burn_verify or other siblings. Usage is therefore inferable but not fully specified.

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