get_receipt_chain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the scope requirement, governance by Arbiter policy, and that every call is cryptographically sealed. It explains the output (all receipts in order, verified). However, it does not detail rate limits, error handling, or consequences of chain issues.

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 is concise, with two short paragraphs. The first paragraph immediately states the purpose and behavior, and the second covers requirements and governance. Every sentence adds value with no 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 description explains what is returned (all receipts in order, verified) and mentions scope and governance. However, it lacks detail on return format/fields (no output schema) and does not address pagination or error conditions. It is fairly complete for a retrieval tool but could elaborate on the receipt structure.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'limit' and 'container'. It could have explained how limit interacts with chronological ordering or the meaning of container, but it's acceptable.

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 clearly states the tool fetches and verifies the complete ProofLink receipt chain in chronological order, confirming tamper-proof status. It specifies the source (iTechSmart's production ledger) and distinguishes itself from verification-specific siblings by emphasizing comprehensive retrieval and verification.

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 mentions the required scope (ledger:audit:read) and governance policy, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like prooflink.verify_chain or prooflink.verify_receipt. Usage context is implied but not clearly differentiated.

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