verify_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the default for require_pq via OAO_REQUIRE_PQ, the failure condition when PQ legs are missing, and the security rationale (anti-downgrade). It does not explicitly mention non-mutation, but 'verify' implies it; the extra details are valuable.

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 two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the key security parameter behavior. Every word adds value; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the most non-obvious behavior (PQ default and failure mode) and the output schema likely documents return values. It does not detail the receipt's internal structure, but the schema's additionalProperties hint and the 'certificate alone' phrasing give reasonable context for a crypto verification tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning to require_pq (fail behavior, default source) but leaves the receipt parameter largely unexplained beyond the schema's 'object' type. Since the receipt is the primary input, more detail would be needed for full compensation.

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'), the resource ('Trust Gate receipt'), and the method ('from the certificate alone (offline)'). This distinguishes it from sibling mint tools (e.g., mint_receipt_for_record_change, mint_action_receipt) and conveys the offline verification scope.

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 implies usage for offline verification from the certificate alone, and the downgrade attack defense suggests when to set require_pq. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative verification approaches or state when not to use this tool, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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