chap.audit.verify_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses fail-closed behavior when no verifier is configured, which is a meaningful operational trait. However, it does not clarify side effects, return/error behavior for invalid receipts, or any permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, both meaningful and front-loaded. The primary action is stated first, and the fail-closed caveat is added efficiently without redundant filler.

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 verification tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. It covers the core purpose and one edge case, yet lacks an explanation of success/failure outputs, how errors surface beyond the missing-verifier case, and how it relates to the sibling 'chap.audit.verify_chain'.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description adds little about parameters themselves; its mention of 'configured verifier' is related to environment behavior rather than to the 'receipt' or 'workspace' parameters. The schema already documents the parameters sufficiently.

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 clearly states the action ('Verify') and the resource ('a SCITT receipt') via 'the configured verifier', which is specific enough to convey the core purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'chap.audit.verify_chain', but the 'receipt' wording partially differentiates it.

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 state when to use this tool versus the related sibling 'chap.audit.verify_chain', nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions. The only contextual hint is fail-closed behavior, which is about failure handling, not usage selection.

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