agora_create_resolution_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — Sprint 03 receipts never settle TOKOIN — which is domain context not present in structured fields. But for a create/mutation tool it says nothing about permissions, whether the receipt is immutable, what the idempotency_key does, retry semantics, or side effects, leaving major gaps.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the caveat. Slightly under-specified rather than padded, but efficient given its length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with zero annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and six parameters on a mutation tool, the description is far too thin — an agent cannot determine valid values for requested_state, what evidence objects should be supplied, or what the invocation guarantees.

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 mentions no parameter at all. Five required parameters (challenge_id, outcome_id, registered_protocol_id, requested_state, evidence_object_ids) plus the optional idempotency_key are entirely undocumented in prose, so the description adds zero meaning beyond bare property names.

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 ('produce a receipt') and a specific resource ('resolution receipt' via AGORA's deterministic resolver'), which distinguishes it from siblings like agora_create_claim or agora_create_replay. However, it never explains what a 'resolution receipt' actually is or what is being resolved, so an agent must infer the domain meaning. This is vague but not tautological.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools that produce related artifacts (create_replay, create_summary, get_challenge_result). The only positional hint is implicit in the parameter names, which the agent must read from the schema itself.

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