Get service info and public key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states exactly what is returned (manifest components) and the purpose, making the behavior predictable. The read-only nature is implied by 'Return', and no side effects are relevant for a getter.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that packs specific details (schema version, signing key id, key format, purpose) without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the return contents and intended usage. There are no gaps that would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter usage. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies; the description adds value by clarifying the output format without needing parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' plus the resource 'service manifest' and enumerates the exact contents: receipt schema version, signing key id, and Ed25519 public key. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (issue_receipt, verify_receipt, export_audit_bundle) by focusing on service metadata rather than receipt operations.

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 phrase 'to pin for offline verification' provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the use case is evident and the tool's purpose is unique among siblings.

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