get_receipts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Get' implying read-only, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, idempotency, or permission requirements. It does not disclose behavior for missing artifact_hash or large result sets.

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, concise but lacks structure. It could be improved by separating purpose and usage details. It earns its place but does not excel in providing organized information.

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 and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits return format, pagination, error handling, and behavior for missing parameters. For a tool with one optional param, it is borderline but still leaves significant questions.

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 0%, and the description adds minimal meaning: 'optionally filtered by artifact' links the parameter artifact_hash to filtering but does not explain the format or valid values. This is insufficient for a parameter with no schema description.

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 retrieves all signed receipts with optional filtering by artifact. The verb 'Get' and resource 'signed receipts' are specific. Sibling tools like list_claims or get_chain_events are distinct, so no confusion arises.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify if this tool is preferred over list_claims for certain cases.

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