export_receipts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers behavior well: it includes earlier runs, returns a chain verification result, and clarifies that optional IDs are only identifiers and do not trigger a spend decision. It stops short of explicitly labeling this tool read-only, but the export semantics and non-spend-decision note make behavior largely transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each with distinct content: output, scope, then parameter semantics. The core result is front-loaded and no words are wasted.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description covers the return format, scope, and parameter semantics. It would be more complete with an explicit statement of side effects or when the chain verification result can be considered authoritative, but nothing essential for invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that the IDs accept identifiers only and are bound into the signed actor by spend_decide, clarifying different treatment in read-only/cost tools beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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?

States a specific action ('Export'), resource ('tenant decision ledger'), and output shape ('hash-chained array of signed receipts with a chain verification result'). The scope qualifier 'including earlier process runs' makes it distinguishable from siblings like verify_receipt.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against siblings. 'Memory mode exports this process only' implies a context limitation but does not name alternatives such as verify_receipt or provenance_preview.

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