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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description adds genuinely new context: no token/auth is required, and a sandbox receipt is reported as a rehearsal and never as valid proof. That sandbox-handling rule is a non-obvious output behavior the agent could not get from annotations.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler: the trigger, the action with its mechanism, and the constraint. The most important information (do this before transacting) is front-loaded, and each sentence carries distinct content.

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 public, read-only verification tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, auth posture, and sandbox caveat. It does not say what a negative result looks like (e.g., a non-governed agent, or a receipt that fails signature verification), leaving some result interpretation to inference.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only alludes to the receipt pair without adding format or syntax detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names two specific operations — checking whether a counterparty is FLOCORE-governed and independently verifying a handed-over receipt — with the concrete mechanism (human-approval gate, Ed25519 signed receipts). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like aegis_inspect or flocore_onboard_request, which handle different concerns.

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 triggering condition is explicit and front-loaded: 'Before transacting with another agent...'. The conditional part ('if it handed you a receipt') also tells the agent when the optional parameters apply. It stops short of naming alternate tools or stating when NOT to call this one.

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