itsm_verify_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, permissions required, or if it is read-only. It only states the return values, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous words. The purpose is front-loaded with the verb, and the return values are mentioned efficiently.

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?

For a simple verification tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states what it does and what it returns. However, it could mention error conditions or format of hash for full completeness.

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?

Although the schema covers the parameter description 100%, the description adds context by explaining that the ticket_id is for a ProofLink receipt, which clarifies the parameter's role beyond 'Ticket ID to verify'.

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 verb 'verify' and the resource 'ProofLink receipt embedded in an ITSM ticket', distinguishing it from sibling tools like prooflink.verify_receipt which operates on standalone receipts.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like prooflink.verify_receipt or verify_prooflink_receipt. The description implies its use for tickets but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative comparison.

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