aps_attribution_receipt_id

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

No annotations exist, so the description must bear full burden. It discloses that signatures are ignored and that verifiers use the ID for tamper detection, but lacks information on side effects, permissions, or error handling; some behavioral traits are implied but not explicit.

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 a single sentence that is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose ('compute the canonical sha256 id'). It avoids fluff, though minor restructuring could improve readability.

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 helper tool with one param and no output schema, the description provides adequate context but does not link to sibling tools or workflows (e.g., when this ID is used in verification). More context on usage in a sequence would improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by specifying the 'unsigned core' aspect beyond the schema's 'signatures ignored', indicating what part of the receipt is used for hashing; this enriches the parameter's intent.

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 clearly states the tool computes a canonical sha256 ID of an AttributionReceipt's unsigned core, specifying the verb (compute) and resource (sha256 id), and distinguishes it from siblings that verify or create receipts.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives; the description implies a helper role for tamper detection but does not specify prerequisites, when not to use, or relationships with sibling tools like aps_verify_attribution_consent.

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