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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the returned artifacts (retained record, hash chain, Merkle inclusion proof), the integrity-only limitation, cost and account requirements ('Free, read-only, no account'), and input privacy constraints ('inputs must be public and non-personal'). These are meaningful behavioral details that help an agent invoke it correctly.

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 three tightly written sentences with no waste. It front-loads the usage condition, then the return behavior, then the key limitation and constraints.

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 read-only verification tool with no output schema, the description supplies what is needed: when to use it, what it returns, and the crucial integrity-only caveat. It is complete enough for correct selection and invocation without an output schema.

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 six parameters, including receipt_id and optional grouping fields. The description only echoes receipt_id and does not add syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: verify a GAIP receipt using a held receipt_id. It also clarifies the exact question answered ('is this receipt genuine?') and what the tool returns, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like gaip_receipt_export or gaip_evidence_pack.

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 gives a clear usage condition: use when you hold a GAIP receipt_id and want to confirm it. It also bounds the tool with 'Integrity only: it does not make the underlying claim true,' but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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