aureon_validate_receipt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states the operation is local with 'No API call,' specifies the return shape '{ valid, issues },' and gives an important trust warning about failed validation. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects, but for a local validator this is solid disclosure.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, no-API clarification, return shape, and a critical warning. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple one-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it does, that it is local, the return shape, and a key trust condition. No essential information is missing for an agent to call 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes the receipt parameter as 'ExecutionReceipt JSON from restore, listExecutions, or API.' The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Validates an execution receipt locally (schema + settlement labels).' It also clarifies the scope ('locally') and that no API call is made. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like aureon_get_execution_settlement or the receipt verification demos, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: validate a receipt locally when you have one. A caution ('Do not trust or summarize a receipt as on-chain when validation fails') informs post-validation behavior but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aureon_get_execution_settlement or the demo tools. No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are named.

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