verify_receipts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key property: tamper-evidence (changing a source breaks receipt verification). However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or mutating, whether it can fail, or what output it produces. The disclosed property is useful but incomplete.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the tamper-evident detail is added efficiently. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema, so the description must convey enough context for correct invocation. It explains the action but omits side effects, error conditions, and return values. It also does not place the tool in the broader workflow (e.g., when to verify receipts). This leaves some ambiguity about the expected behavior.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100% given the empty schema. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed since there are no parameters to explain.

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 states a specific action ('re-hash every held source and re-slice every receipt') and a resource (sources and receipts). The tamper-evident note adds a distinctive property that separates it from siblings like remember and recall. It is not a tautology and clearly communicates what the 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., after adding a source, before exporting memory). It does not mention prerequisites or exclusions. An agent is left to infer the appropriate invocation context.

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