proofpage_get_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It does establish that this is a read of immutable, signed, hash-chained data and, usefully, states the epistemic scope ('attest what Proofpage observed, not what a server sent'). It omits auth/permission requirements, behavior for a nonexistent or unanchored revision, and result size/pagination.

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, zero filler, with the resource and its contents front-loaded and the important caveat placed second. Every clause adds information.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and its trust semantics, which is the core need. It stops short of the operational details (how to get a revision_id, what an empty or unanchored result looks like) that would make the definition self-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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description has to compensate and does only partially: 'for a revision' ties revision_id to the revision whose receipts are read. It says nothing about ID format, where to obtain a revision_id, or error behavior for invalid IDs.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read the signed, hash-chained receipts for a revision') and enumerates the returned content (what was observed, when, receipt hashes, timestamp anchoring status). It is clearly distinct from siblings like proofpage_get_evidence or proofpage_get_run, though it doesn't explicitly say so.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., get_evidence vs. get_receipt). The reader must infer the use case from the resource name alone.

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