record_receipt

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it only records, allows one receipt per approval or standing-approval use, and instructs the agent to tell the person and not retry if no receipt key is pinned.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition and action. Each sentence adds operational value: when to call, cardinality, and the no-key edge case.

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 two-parameter write tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers when to use it and the important failure condition. Return behavior is not described, but 'only records it' gives enough signal for this simple operation.

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%, and the schema already documents both `id` and `receipt` including that `id` comes from request_approval and `receipt` is a signed JWT. The description reinforces the receipt concept but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource — record the signed receipt — and scopes it to after a service action for an approval or standing-approval use. This clearly distinguishes it from the approval request/get/cancel siblings.

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?

Gives clear usage context: call after the service acted, pass back the returned signed receipt, and do not retry when no receipt key is pinned. It lacks explicit naming of alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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