Verify a receipt

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

Annotations already mark this readOnly and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: verification is offline, uses a bundled public key, checks specific hashes, and notes the receipt is content-hashed and reproducible from open-source core. It also links to the published key source. This is rich, non-redundant transparency.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the verification logic, the second gives usage modes, and the third provides provenance and key-source context. No filler, no repetition of schema fields, and the most important action is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter verification tool with no output schema, the description covers the inputs, the verification checks, the offline nature, and the key source. The main gap is that it does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean or a detailed verification result) or how failures are surfaced, which an agent would need to fully use the result.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful relationships between the parameters: id is used to fetch the receipt, and receipt is the already-fetched data 'as get_receipt returns it,' avoiding the need to fetch again. This clarifies the 'or' relationship between the two optional-looking fields.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and a precise resource ('a validation receipt'), then enumerates the exact verification steps: Ed25519 signature check, output_sha256 hashing, and content-to-id hashing. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_receipt, which fetches receipts rather than verifying them.

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 gives two clear invocation modes: provide an id to fetch the receipt first, or provide an already-fetched receipt. It implies when to use the tool (when verification is needed) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use get_receipt if you only need the receipt data,' so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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