create_access_receipt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the receipt captures terms and revocation policy, but does not disclose side effects, how the private key is used or handled, whether data is persisted, or what the output looks like. Some context is added, but critical behavioral details are missing.

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, front-loaded with the core action ('Create a signed access receipt') followed by a clarifying detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose; no filler or redundancy.

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?

This tool has 5 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain the return value, prerequisites, or any security considerations around submitting a private key. For a cryptographic operation with a private key input, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 all parameters are well-defined in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning, only hinting that 'terms and revocation policy' relate to the block parameter. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Create a signed access receipt — cryptographic proof that your agent consumed content under specific terms.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling receipt tools by emphasizing 'access' and 'revocation policy at access time.'

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 implies the use case (proof of content consumption under terms) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over similar ones like create_derivation_receipt or aps_create_attribution_receipt. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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