prooflink.verify_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It states 'Read-only' and 'without granting mutation rights', which are good. However, it does not disclose behavior on missing or invalid receipts, rate limits, or performance characteristics. Adequate for a simple verification tool.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first defines the tool, second adds scope and policy context. No waste.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, alias, required scope, and policy. It lacks explicit mention of the return format, but that is often implied for verification tools. Nearly 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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description of receipt_id ('16 hex characters'). The description adds no further meaning beyond 'verify by ID', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('verify'), the resource ('ProofLink receipt'), and the scope ('Read-only audit scope'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by noting it is an alias for verify_prooflink_receipt, which clarifies the relationship.

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 context on when to use ('Read-only audit scope') and mentions required scope and governance. It explicitly points to the alias sibling, but does not give explicit when-not or alternative use cases beyond that.

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