Export an audit bundle

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains that the bundle is signed, includes a tamper-evidence report, flags sequence gaps and hash-chain breaks, and defaults to exporting everything when no dates are provided. This gives meaningful insight beyond a simple 'export' phrase, though it could still clarify whether the operation has side effects (likely none).

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by two sentences of essential detail. Every word adds value with no redundancy or vagueness.

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 the tool has only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main context: purpose, security features, and parameter behaviors. It might lack details about the exact delivery format of the bundle, but the description is otherwise adequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage by describing 'from' and 'to' as ISO 8601 timestamps for issued_at. The description adds further value by reinforcing the ISO 8601 format and explicitly stating the behavior when both are omitted (export everything).

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 a specific action ('Export all receipts in a date range as a signed audit bundle') and names the intended audience (compliance officer or auditor). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like issue_receipt and verify_receipt, which have different purposes.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (for compliance/audit purposes) and explains parameter behavior (date range, omit both for everything). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct that the intended usage is clear.

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