prooflink.search_receipts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only' (non-destructive) and mentions governance and cryptographic sealing, adding behavioral context. However, it omits details like rate limits, return structure, or whether results are paginated.

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 sentence front-loads the purpose and scope. Every sentence adds value (purpose, filter similarity, scope requirement, governance). No wasted words, though could potentially be combined.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 fully described parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and behavior. However, it does not describe the return format (list of receipts, structure), which is a gap for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already fully described in the schema. The description only references 'same limit/container filters as get_receipt_chain', which reinforces but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 action 'search recent ProofLink receipts' with a specific purpose 'for ledger-backed post-hoc reconstruction'. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_receipt_chain' by mentioning the same filters, but could be more explicit about the differences between the two tools.

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 gives minimal usage guidance: it states 'Read-only audit scope' and mentions required scope, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_receipt_chain' or 'verify_receipt'. No explicit when-not or alternative recommendations.

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