record_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description mentions that the receipt is 'honest, hash-chained' (implying immutability) and that it returns the receipt. However, it fails to disclose side effects (e.g., appending is additive, not destructive) or any required permissions.

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 consists of two short sentences that front-load the main action and include an example. It is efficient but could benefit from additional context without being verbose.

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 four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or what the hash chain implies operationally, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 0%, and the description only explains the 'verdict' parameter with typical values. The other three parameters (decision, metric, value) are left undefined, so agents cannot determine their meaning or format.

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's action: 'Append an honest, hash-chained receipt to the ledger and return it.' It also gives examples of typical verdict values. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like read_receipts or gate_checklist.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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