verify_context_receipt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses two meaningful traits: 'timing-safe' and 'canonicalized so JSON field order does not matter', which are security-relevant. It stops short of 5 because it does not describe the return value or failure behavior (e.g., boolean vs exception) for an invalid signature.

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 that clearly states the action, inputs, and two important behavioral caveats without any filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally indicate what the verification returns or whether it throws on failure. The description omits this, but the security details and clear purpose provide enough context to push it above a minimal score.

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 schema already describes the receipt parameter as 'exactly as returned by context_receipt', which is helpful. The signature parameter is only typed as string with no description. The tool description adds value by noting that canonicalization makes field order irrelevant for the receipt JSON, but it does not clarify the signature's format, encoding, or how it is obtained.

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 uses the specific verb 'Verify' against a 'context receipt + signature pair', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like context_receipt (creation) and read_file (reading files). Mentioning 'local receipt key' adds precision about the verification target.

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 action 'Verify' clearly implies this tool is for validating a receipt+signature pair, so usage context is evident. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as context_receipt for creating receipts, so it falls short of a 5.

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