verify_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'verify' and 'tamper-evident', suggesting authenticity checks, but does not disclose verification outcomes (e.g., success/failure format), error conditions, or any side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word adds value: verb, resource, source, and key property.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It could specify return values (e.g., boolean or decoded receipt) but the core purpose and parameter context are sufficient.

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 single parameter 'receipt' is an object with no schema description. The description adds meaningful context: it is a 'signed receipt returned by recall/forget'. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage by linking the parameter to its origin.

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 verb 'verify' and the resource 'signed receipt', and specifies the source ('returned by recall/forget') with a notable property ('tamper-evident'). This distinguishes it from siblings like recall and forget, which produce receipts.

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 implies use after recall/forget to check integrity but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor mention alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or fallback scenarios.

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