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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints: it explains what gets signed for each kind, that 'session' covers the last limit turns, and that 'state_transition' is chained to the prior emitted receipt.

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 compact and front-loaded, with two sentences that each carry useful information. It includes the key kind distinction and the unsupported 'task' case without wasted wording.

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 non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the two receipt kinds and the chaining behavior. It still does not describe the return value or whether the receipt is returned directly versus only written, but the essential invocation context is covered.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces that 'limit' applies to session-log turns for kind 'session' and clarifies kind behavior, but it does not add much parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific verb and resource: emit a signed continuity receipt. It then distinguishes supported receipt kinds and explicitly rules out 'task' receipts, which lets an agent identify the tool's domain 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?

The description implies usage through its explanation of 'session' versus 'state_transition' receipts and notes that 'task' is unsupported. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over the obvious sibling receipts.verify or other session continuity tools, so guidance remains mostly implied.

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