mind_receipts

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read operation, so the description does not need to carry the full safety burden. It adds that the operation gathers and verifies receipts over time, but it does not explain what verification entails, how far back the receipts go, or what the return format looks like.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and resource immediately, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter read tool.

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 annotations cover the safety profile and the tool has no parameters, but the description remains thin on what "audit receipts" are and what "verify" means in practice. For a tool whose purpose is auditing and verification, additional context about the returned evidence or time scope would make the definition more complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently simple and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any input fields, and the empty schema is consistent with the description.

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 gives a specific verb pair, "Gather and verify," and a specific resource, "audit receipts from Mind API operations over time." It is clear enough to distinguish this from generic health or route tools, but it does not explain how it differs from nearby siblings such as proof, successes, or failures.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase "over time" implies an audit or historical usage scenario, but it never states exclusions or names siblings like proof or mind_health as alternatives.

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