aps_attribution_receipt_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the safety/behavioral burden. It discloses that signatures are ignored and that the computation is canonical (sha256), which explains key input handling and determinism. It doesn't cover errors or return format, but for a simple hash helper this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('compute'), no redundant phrasing. Every clause carries meaning about purpose, behavior, or usage.

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 one-parameter compute tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what it does, why it exists, and key input behavior. It could specify the return type (e.g., hex string) but that's implied by 'sha256 id' and not a major gap.

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 documents the single 'receipt' parameter as 'AttributionReceipt JSON (signatures ignored)' with 100% coverage. The description adds 'unsigned core' but that is semantically equivalent to the schema's note, providing no extra value over structured data.

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 ('compute'), identifies the resource ('canonical sha256 id of an AttributionReceipt's unsigned core'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on id generation for tamper detection, not receipt creation or verification.

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?

It clearly positions the tool as a helper for verifiers to detect id tampering, implying when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is concrete enough given the sibling tool names.

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