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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds that the verification is cryptographic and free, which hints at a safe, stateless operation, but it does not describe success/failure behavior, response shape, or any constraints. With annotations covering the safety profile, a mid score is appropriate.

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 compact sentence with no filler. The key verb and object are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the 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?

The tool is a one-parameter verification function with no output schema, so the description should clarify what the verification returns and what a valid receipt looks like. It does neither. The agent is left without enough context to know how to interpret the result or handle validation failures.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the 'receipt' parameter. It provides only the phrase 'ScopeProof authorization receipt,' which adds slight context but does not specify the expected format, encoding, or origin of the receipt. This is insufficient to confidently construct a correct input.

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 states a concrete operation ('cryptographic verification') on a specific resource ('ScopeProof authorization receipt'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as check_action or preflight, so it stops short of a top score.

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 offers no guidance on when to use verify_receipt versus check_action or preflight. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions under which this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.

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