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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the re-signing process (Ed25519 deterministic), inclusion proof, signed checkpoint, and on-chain anchor. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's output without contradicting any annotation.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Receipt #index from GBLIN's receipts log') and packs in all necessary details (re-signing, proofs, checkpoint, anchor, cost). There is no wasted text; it is both concise and structurally effective.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be described), and the provided behavioral details (re-signing with proofs and checkpoint), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and even notes it is free.

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% for the single parameter 'index', which is fully described in the schema with context (0-based, current size at GET /log/checkpoint). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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?

Description states the tool retrieves a receipt by index from GBLIN's receipts log, and specifies that it returns a re-signed receipt with a fresh inclusion proof, current signed checkpoint, and on-chain anchor. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like receipts.verify or receipts.seal, which perform different operations.

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 does not explicitly describe when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage by stating it fetches from the log, but does not mention when not to use it or contrast with similar tools like receipts.verify. There is no explicit guidance on choosing among siblings.

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