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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful point beyond them — that no receipt is persisted, which matters because a sibling does persist — but says nothing about validation failure behavior or what a rejection looks like.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the non-persistence constraint appended as a useful qualifier. No wasted words.

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 no explanation, but for a validation tool with a highly constrained nested input the description omits what the computed commitment is, whether validation errors are surfaced, and how the event attestation is required. Adequate but thin for the complexity.

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% and the single 'event' parameter is a deeply nested object with const version, fixed hash algorithms, timestamp patterns and enum methods. The description adds no meaning about any of these fields, leaving the agent to infer the entire payload contract from the raw 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 chain (validate ... and compute its commitment) against a named resource (a client-declared HTTP exchange). The closing clause 'no receipt is persisted' implicitly separates it from issue_api_receipt, though that sibling is not named.

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 non-persistence note hints at the prepare-then-issue workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of when this tool should be preferred over issue_api_receipt or verify_api_receipt. Usage is only implied.

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