receipt_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' signals a non-mutating retrieval and 'Includes chain verification' discloses a meaningful behavior, but it says nothing about pagination via limit, ordering, or what the verification returns.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. Every clause adds 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should do more to explain result shape and the limit parameter. It covers the ledger contents but leaves an agent guessing about pagination and verification output.

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% for the single optional limit parameter, and the description never mentions it. The name 'limit' is intuitive, but default value, maximum, and pagination behavior are left entirely unspecified.

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 (Read) and a well-defined resource (the hash-chained delegation ledger), and enumerates what it contains (mandates, refusals, delivery receipts). It is distinguishable from the card_* and gateway_delegate siblings, though it does not name them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this versus card_verify or gateway_delegate, nor on prerequisites or exclusions. The read/ledger framing implies a retrieval use case, but nothing is explicit.

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