receipt_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does contribute real behavioral context — the ledger is append-only and hash-chained, and includes failures as well as passes — which tells an agent entries are immutable and auditable. It omits that this is a non-mutating read, says nothing about ordering, pagination, default/maximum limit, or whether the list is scoped to the caller.

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?

A single sentence with no waste, and the most distinctive property (append-only, hash-chained) is front-loaded. However it is an appositive fragment rather than an actionable statement, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy.

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?

No annotations and no output schema mean the description must supply both behavioral and structural detail, and it supplies only a one-line characterization. An agent still cannot tell entry ordering, pagination behavior, or what the undocumented 'image' parameter filters on before calling.

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% and the description mentions neither parameter. 'limit' is largely self-evident, but 'image' on a ledger-listing tool is genuinely ambiguous — a filter by image? by hash? — and the description does nothing to disambiguate it.

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 name plus the phrase 'receipt ledger of past verifications — passes and failures alike' tells an agent the resource is a log of prior verification results, and implicitly contrasts with verify_image (which performs a verification). But the description is a noun phrase with no verb, so it never states that the tool lists or returns entries, and it says nothing about policy_show.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — nothing about when to call this versus re-running verify_image, and no mention of prerequisites. The only faint signal is 'past verifications', which an agent must infer means this is read-after-verify.

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