Verify a receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that verification is offline, returns signature validity and signing agent, and optionally checks params/result against hashes. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but main behavioral traits are clear.

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?

Description is two concise sentences. First sentence states core purpose and mode (offline), second explains outputs and optional feature. No redundant information.

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?

Tool is simple but lacks output schema. Description explains return of validity and agent key, but does not specify return format or error responses. Context about optional checks is provided, but completeness is moderate given no 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context that optional parameters allow re-checking against receipt hashes, which enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states the tool verifies a signed ActionProof receipt offline, returning signature validity and signing agent. Title and description align, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools attest_action (which produces receipts) and get_identity (which gets identity).

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?

Description implies usage by stating it verifies receipts offline, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any prerequisites or exclusions. Sibling tool names are provided but no guidance on when to choose verify_receipt.

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