Issue Verifier Receipt

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds concrete behavioral details: result returned inline and not written to disk, no authentication, no network calls, no local file modifications, no external rate limits. This fully discloses side effects and operational characteristics, exceeding the baseline set by annotations.

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 composed of four sentences, each adding distinct information (purpose, output handling, authentication, operational traits). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficient, though slightly longer than strictly necessary; no filler exists.

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 8 parameters (all schema-described) and an output schema, the description covers operational context, prerequisites (existing registered artifact), and behavioral guarantees. It lacks only a mention of the optional subject_digest parameter, but that is already documented in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, and the baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 states a specific action (issue a verifier-hashed receipt) with clear constraints (only for existing, registered artifacts under the MCP scan root). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like coverage_emit or coverage_check by focusing on receipt issuance, not coverage calculation or emission.

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?

It provides a usage constraint ('only for an existing, registered surface-specific verification artifact') but does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool versus siblings. The 'only' implies a precondition but offers no comparative guidance.

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