Wayreceipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral scope: public log, countersigned receipts, and exclusion of test receipts and removed entries. It doesn't mention freshness or auth, but with annotations the bar is lower.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and metrics, followed by the exclusion rule. Every clause adds 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the four counts returned, which is what an agent needs to know. It could state the return type (e.g., integers), but overall it is complete for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4 per the scoring rules. The description correctly adds no parameter semantics, which is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Counts') and resource ('public log of countersigned receipts') and enumerates the four metrics it returns. It is clearly distinct from the sibling lookup/publish/verify tools, though it does not explicitly name 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?

Usage is implied: aggregate counting over the public log. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, nor a named alternative, so an agent must infer that this is the stats path versus lookup_delivery_receipt.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious caveats. It discloses that only self-published receipts exist in the log (coverage/recall limitation) and that a seller key is not a verified identity, which materially affects how an agent should interpret results.

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: what it does, what a seller query returns, then the caveats. Front-loaded with the primary behavior and no repetition of schema 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?

With no output schema and zero required parameters, the description covers the key interpretation risks (partial log, unverified identity) well. It could mention what happens when no lookup key is supplied (does it list everything?), which is the one gap for an all-optional-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive patterns and formats, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description clarifies only that 'deliverable hash' equals file SHA-256 and that the seller key is a DID-style identifier, adding modest value beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Finds countersigned receipts in the public log') and names the three lookup keys, which makes it clearly a read side of the log. It does not explicitly contrast itself with verify_delivery_receipt or publish_delivery_receipt, leaving the boundary to the reader.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'public log' and 'published' – the agent can infer this is a discovery lookup, not verification. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance telling the agent to call this first and then verify_delivery_receipt, which is the most likely routing decision.

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

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: published receipts become public and permanent, the server re-verifies and rejects invalid or seller-only receipts, keys never leave the client, and the optional links are classified as match, mismatch, or unreachable. This fills in what the idempotent and non-read-only hints cannot convey.

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?

Five tight sentences lead with the action and scope, then layer the preconditions, rejection rules, optional parameters, and the public-disclosure warning. No sentence is filler, and the most consequential caveat (public receipts) closes the text.

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, a nested VC object, and no output schema. The description covers inputs and behavior well, but it never says what a successful publish returns (a log entry ID or URL), so callers cannot use the result for subsequent lookup.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description has to compensate for buyer_link and seller_link, which it does by explaining they are optional pages checked for proof of ownership by the signing key, with three possible outcomes. The receipt parameter is described in the schema; a little more on the expected VC structure would make this a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: publish a countersigned receipt to the public log as proof of delivery for a deliverable hash. The purpose is clear, and the description notes the server only re-verifies and never holds keys, which separates it from the verify and lookup sibling tools, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives the trigger condition (only after both seller and buyer have signed, signing done client-side with the free library), the rejection conditions (seller-only or invalid receipts), and the optional link checks. It does not point to alternatives such as verify_delivery_receipt for a pre-check or lookup_delivery_receipt for retrieval.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds context annotations can't carry: the exact verification semantics, the enumerated outcome space with reasons, and the absence of auth/registration/cost. It does not discuss what happens when the receipt structure itself is malformed, but the outcome categories largely cover the failure mode.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and then the verification scope, then outcomes, then use cases – a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. Minor overlap between "Proof of delivery check" and "Verifies a delivery receipt", and the trailing "Free, no sign-up, no API key" is only marginally useful to an agent.

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 formatting needn't be explained; the nested receipt object is described in the schema. What remains for the description – what is verified, the possible verdicts, and when to reach for it – is all present and sufficient to call the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the expected W3C VC 2.0 / eddsa-jcs-2022 receipt format. The sentence about comparing a file's SHA-256 with the deliverable hash largely restates the file_sha256 schema entry rather than adding new constraints or output semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (verifies) and resource (delivery receipt) and scopes exactly what is checked: the seller's signature over the deliverable hash and, if present, the buyer's countersignature. Its three result categories (countersigned, seller-only, invalid) and the optional file-hash comparison make it clearly distinct from the lookup and publish siblings without naming 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?

"Relevant to a delivery dispute or to checking a seller before payment" gives concrete situations that select this tool. It stops short of naming lookup_delivery_receipt or publish_delivery_receipt as alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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