aamio_receipt

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

The description adds material behavior beyond the annotations: with anchor the root is published to Verifyum, anchored on Solana, leaves the machine, and cannot be undone. It also explains that local_root_matches being null when fewer messages are held is not a failure. These details align with readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, with no contradiction.

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 dense but every sentence adds a distinct point: artifact contents, channel sourcing, verification semantics, interpretive limits, and anchor side effects. It is somewhat long and packed into compound sentences, but it avoids filler and front-loads the core receipt concept.

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 no output schema, the description conveys what a receipt contains and how to interpret its verification fields, which is enough for an agent to understand the returned artifact. It does not describe the exact response shape or error cases, but the combination of parameter explanations and behavioral caveats makes the tool usable.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: channel is a local label, not a write address/post id, defaults to inbox, and should usually come from aamio_channels; anchor's external publishing and irreversibility are described in useful terms beyond the schema's 'publish the root externally'.

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 the tool returns 'The receipt for one channel' and enumerates its contents (hashes, times, signer keys, one root), which clearly identifies the resource. There is no explicit verb like 'get' or 'verify', and the description reads partly as concept definition, but it still distinguishes itself from sibling read/send/channel tools by focusing on the receipt artifact.

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 gives actionable guidance on sourcing the channel parameter: take it from the message or aamio_channels, avoid the default inbox for board answers. It clarifies the meaning of verification fields and warns that a receipt only proves passage, not read/action; it does not name alternative sibling tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, which keeps this below a 5.

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