verify_receipt

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the boolean return, the effect of tampering, and the identifier-only semantics of optional fields. It does not note the public_key_hex default or possible error behavior, but the core behavioral contract is sufficiently 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 with no filler: the first states the function and return value, the second describes the tampering guarantee, and the third explains optional field semantics. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description adequately states the return format and verification behavior. It covers the main success/failure condition (tampering) and clarifies optional parameter semantics. Minor gaps like the public key default exist, but they are captured in the schema rather than the description.

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%, with each parameter already well documented (e.g., 'signed as actor.taskId on spend_decide'). The description adds a useful clarification that these fields 'accept identifiers only' and are not recorded as a spend decision, but it does not meaningfully expand on receipt_json or public_key_hex.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Independently verify an AgentGuard signed receipt.' It also states the return type ('valid true/false') and the tampering condition, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools (preview, status, export, set cost, spend decide).

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 does not explicitly say 'use when you need to validate a receipt,' but the context is clear: it verifies a receipt and contrasts with spend_decide behavior. It clarifies that optional identifiers are not bound to a spend decision here, helping an agent avoid misusing fields across sibling tools.

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