parley_verify_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it explains the trust model for match, states that the hash and verdicts are unsigned and stored nowhere, spells out exactly what max_min_verified recomputes and when it is false, and distinguishes a malformed transcript (tool error) from a genuine mismatch. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a verification tool.

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?

Purpose and return shape are front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence adds distinct semantics (trust caveats, recomputation rules, error behavior) rather than padding. The one drawback is that it is a single dense paragraph of caveats, which makes scanning for a specific fact harder than a lightly structured version would be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates the return fields (match, max_min_verified, expected_sha256, recomputed_sha256), interprets them, and covers the error case. For a nested-input verification tool with no annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that sha256 is only trustworthy if held by another party, and that expected_owners exists so a record missing a whole owner also fails. These are semantic stakes the schema alone does not convey.

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 first sentence names a specific operation (two independent checks) on a specific resource (a transcript from parley_decide), and it explicitly identifies the upstream tool that produces the input. An agent can tell this apart from parley_decide and parley_check_party without opening a 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?

It gives strong conditional guidance on when the result is meaningful (only when the hash was kept by a different party than whoever could edit the transcript) and recommends passing expected_owners to catch missing owners. It does not explicitly contrast the use case against the sibling parley_check_party, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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