Verify a Trust Gate receipt from the certificate alone (offline). require_pq=True (default via OAO_REQUIRE_PQ) FAILS if the ML-DSA-65 or SLH-DSA legs are missing -- defends against signature-stripping downgrade attacks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipt | Yes | ||
| require_pq | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It adds value by explaining that require_pq=True causes failure if specific signatures are missing, defending against downgrade attacks. However, it does not describe success behavior, return values, idempotency, or side effects. Some behavioral context is provided but not comprehensive.
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 two sentences, each serving a purpose: first defines the action, second explains a key parameter and its security implication. No wasted words, front-loaded with purpose, and efficiently structured.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main verification action, offline mode, and a critical parameter. Missing details about return values are likely covered by the output schema, and the receipt parameter structure could be elaborated, but overall it is sufficient.
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 0% as the description does not detail the receipt parameter's structure. It does explain require_pq's effect and default, adding meaning beyond the schema. For a 2-parameter tool with low coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves the receipt parameter inadequately described.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Verify a Trust Gate receipt from the certificate alone (offline).' This uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from sibling tools like mint_action_receipt and mint_receipt_for_record_change, which focus on minting rather than verification.
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 description implies usage for verification use cases, especially when needing to verify offline. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to siblings, but the verb 'verify' and context of offline operation provide clear guidance. The sibling tools are about minting and auditing, so distinction is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct purpose: auditing tool risk, minting generic receipts, minting CRM-specific receipts, and verifying receipts. Descriptions clearly differentiate inputs and outputs, minimizing confusion.
All tools follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores (audit_*, mint_*, mint_*, verify_*), maintaining a consistent style. The nouns are descriptive of the specific functionality, ensuring clarity.
Four tools is a well-scoped set for a specialized receipt management and auditing server. Each tool serves a distinct role without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers creation of receipts (generic and specific), verification, and an inventory auditing feature. This appears complete for the server's stated purpose with no obvious gaps.