sootool.verify_receipt

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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description stays consistent while adding real substance: the mechanism is re-execution (not a stored-value lookup), which hashes are cross-checked, and that signature verification is optional. It does not state what happens when require_signature=true and no signature exists, nor whether the re-executed call is cost-free.

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?

Four sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and then the compared fields and the exclusion. Dense but readable; nothing repeats the schema.

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?

Covers the mechanism, the compared fields, the conditional signature path, and the tool class to avoid; an output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out. The remaining hole is the unexplored require_signature flag and failure behavior when verification cannot be performed.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does explain four of five: tool+arguments drive the re-execution, receipt is the integrity payload, public_key_b64 enables signature checks. However require_signature is never mentioned, and the expected format of `tool` (a dotted tool id like finance.fv) and the shape of the receipt object are left implicit.

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?

Names a specific verb (re-execute and verify) plus the exact resource (_meta.integrity receipt) and lists precisely what is compared: input hash, result hash, tool version, policy hash. It also explicitly disclaims a neighboring class of tools (core.batch, core.pipeline), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use trigger (a tool emitted _meta.integrity and you want it re-validated) and an explicit when-not (non-deterministic tools such as core.batch/core.pipeline). It also conditions signature checking on the presence of a signature. No alternative verification sibling exists to point at, so 4 rather than 5.

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