landed

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that a live network fetch is performed on the target URL (a side effect, not a pure cache read), that receipts are public-by-id so anyone holding the id can re-check, and that all returned strings are untrusted third-party data rather than instructions. These are exactly the auth/security/behavior facts an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the fresh-recheck behavior before the usage and safety notes. Every clause carries information; there is no filler or restated boilerplate.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain both behavior and returns, and it covers what the result contains (a receipt plus a fresh recheck of the URL). It stops short of describing the shape of the receipt or recheck result, a minor gap given there is no output schema to lean on.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which already documents receipt_id as the hex string returned by verify_write. The description restates that it comes from verify_write and adds that receipts are addressable by id, but adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the 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+resource ('Fetch a receipt') and immediately clarifies it bundles a second action ('plus a FRESH recheck: a new fetch of the target URL performed right now'). It explicitly ties the resource to its producer (verify_write) and differentiates itself from that sibling by emphasizing the stored-receipt retrieval plus live recheck.

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 two concrete triggering scenarios: propagation lag at first verification (CDN caches, eventual consistency) and an operator asking for proof of a past write. This is clear when-to-use guidance, but it never states a when-not or explicitly contrasts with the sibling verify_write for a first-time check.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses a 100-receipt cap, newest-first ordering, that receipts are signed, and an important prompt-injection warning that the agent/action/url strings come from untrusted third parties. It does not cover auth requirements or behavior past the 100 cap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scoping, followed by use cases, return shape, and a security caveat. Every sentence carries distinct 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 must describe returns, and it does: up to 100 signed receipts with their statuses, newest first. Missing only pagination behavior beyond the cap and any auth expectation, so it is nearly complete for a simple read 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 description coverage is 100% for the single required 'agent' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description only restates that receipts are scoped 'under an agent name', adding no format or syntax detail 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Read the last receipts filed under an agent name'), plus ordering ('newest first'). It is clearly distinguishable from a single-receipt fetch, but it never names the siblings get_receipt or verify_write to sharpen the boundary.

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?

It states concrete when-to-use scenarios: auditing yourself before reporting success, and reviewing what another agent claimed it verified. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the independent-server fetch, signed receipt, public-by-id re-checkability, 60-calls-per-agent-per-hour rate limit, public http(s) requirement, robots.txt compliance, and honest fetch identification. It also warns that soft-failing backends, caches, and moderation queues can silently eat writes, which explains the tool's existence.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then structured into core behavior, call rules, parameter advice, receipt details, and limits. It is dense and largely earns its length, though the opening rhetorical question and dramatized success-message sentence could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with five parameters, the description covers the behavior, call discipline, return semantics (signed receipt with fresh HTTP status and content match), and operational constraints thoroughly. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful nuance for the expect parameter: it must be a unique substring and without it the receipt only proves page loads, not that the write is present. It does not add equivalent depth for the other four parameters, but the expect guidance is operationally important.

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 action—fetching the written URL from an independent server to verify a write actually landed—and distinguishes itself from get_receipt by positioning that sibling as the later re-check mechanism. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says to call it once after a write and not to poll, gives the intended trigger context (post, comment, edit, upload, deploy), and names get_receipt as the alternative for later re-checking. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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