verify_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It does communicate that the tool checks signature and content hash, which implies a read-only verification action. However, it does not state the return value, success/failure behavior, or any side effects, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 consists of a single compact sentence, 'Verify a receipt's signature and content hash.' It is front-loaded, economical, and contains no redundant words or filler.

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 tool has a nested input object with no schema detail and no output schema. Despite moderate complexity, the description omits the receipt structure expected by the parameter, the return format, and the meaning of a successful verification. This leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema lists a single nested 'receipt' object with no described properties (0% coverage). The description partially compensates by mentioning that verification involves 'signature and content hash,' which hints at expected receipt fields. But it still doesn't describe the shape, required keys, or format of the receipt object.

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 uses the specific verb 'verify' with the resource 'receipt' and specifies the exact scope ('signature and content hash'), making the tool's purpose clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling create_receipt by being the verification counterpart rather than a creation or mutation tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, what precedes it, or alternatives such as create_receipt. There is no mention of what scenario calls for verification, so a lowercase agent must infer usage solely from the tool's name and purpose.

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