verify_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the non-fail-fast reporting behavior (all checks reported, including passes), states there is no network access and no account requirement, clarifies that the issuer key document is supplied by the caller, and explains that omitting party_keys skips the trigger check and that the result says so. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before trusting the outcome.

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, front-loaded with the verb+resource, then behavior, then the usage decision. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 4-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the key behavioral contract (exhaustive checking, caller-supplied keys, skip semantics for party_keys). It does not sketch what the result document contains, which is the only notable gap given no output schema exists to cover it.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by establishing that the issuer key document is caller-supplied rather than fetched, which frames why issuer_keys is required and what shape of trust model applies. It does not elaborate on the receipt, party_keys, or governance_receipt structures beyond what the schema already says.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Verify a VSL Settlement Receipt'), and the following sentences nail down the scope of the operation: it runs every check and reports all of them rather than short-circuiting on the first failure. There are no siblings to differentiate from, so nothing more is needed to identify what this tool does.

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?

'Use this to decide whether a Receipt you were sent is trustworthy before acting on it' gives a clear decision context for invocation. It states no explicit exclusions or alternatives, but with no sibling tools present there is nothing to route away from, so the guidance is adequate.

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