receipt_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: the log is append-only and hash-chained, which tells the agent entries are immutable and integrity-verifiable. It does not say whether verification always runs, how a broken chain is surfaced, ordering, or cost, which matters for an audit 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key property (append-only hash chain) appears before the secondary 'verify' clause. Brevity is appropriate, though it may be over-compressed given the unanswered behavioral questions.

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 output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented 'limit' parameter leave the agent unable to predict return shape or verification semantics. For a read tool that claims to also verify a hash chain, the description should say what verification produces and how failures appear.

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?

There is one parameter ('limit') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, neither its default, maximum, nor whether it caps receipts or verification work. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List ... gig-core receipts') plus an extra capability ('verify the chain'). No sibling tool touches receipts, so the resource itself distinguishes it, but the coupling of two operations (list vs verify) in one sentence leaves mild ambiguity about what the call actually does.

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?

Usage is only implied by the 'append-only, hash-chained' auditing framing; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named among siblings such as brief_read or completion_verify. An agent can infer it is the audit-trail reader, but nothing in the text confirms that.

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