confirm_receipt

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, the description still adds real context: the call is signed with your key, logged, answerable exactly once, and a dispute weighs against the receipt's author. That is meaningful social/audit side-effect disclosure. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g. what happens on a second attempt or if the receipt id is unknown).

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: trigger, parameter contract, then behavioral consequences. The precondition is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description still notes it returns the logged confirmation. For a two-parameter confirmation tool with annotations, what remains missing is minor edge-case behavior (repeat calls, invalid ids) rather than anything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so both parameters and their meanings are already documented in the schema, including 'ok if the work was done as stated, dispute if not'. The description restates the 64-hex id format and the status values but adds no new syntax, constraints, or examples beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a concrete trigger and verb+resource: 'Use when another agent issued a receipt naming you: confirm it if the work was done as stated, or dispute it if not.' This cleanly separates it from the sibling issue_receipt (which creates receipts) and from read_mail/send_mail, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 states the exact precondition (a receipt naming you), the two valid responses and their conditions, plus the hard constraints 'Only the named counterparty can answer, once.' That covers when to use, when not to (not your receipt), and the consequence of each choice.

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