export_benchmark_receipt

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool generates a signed claim using an Ed25519 session key, that the signature is verifiable, and includes implementation references (GuardrailDecisionV1). It does not mention destructive behavior, rate limits, or idempotency, but the described action is inherently non-destructive.

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 three sentences: the first clearly states the tool's purpose, the second adds technical detail about the signature mechanism, and the third provides a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 parameters and an expected output, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the nature of the receipt, the signing key, verifiability, and a sample output. The presence of an output schema (true) reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still provides valuable context.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameter meanings. It adds context by explaining what the tool produces and including an example result, which is sufficient beyond baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('signed BoundaryAttest receipt') clearly indicating the tool's output. It explicitly names the benchmark context ('agentforce CKG benchmark result'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_concepts or query_ckg.

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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. However, the context of exporting a signed receipt is narrow enough that the usage scenario is implicitly clear. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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