Verify a receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool validates signature, schema, and payload-hash format, and reports whether the receipt matches the vault copy. This gives meaningful behavioral insight beyond the generic name, though it doesn't mention potential error conditions or network/access dependencies.

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?

Two succinct sentences: the first states purpose and key details, the second gives usage guidance. No redundant or filler content; the most important action and resource appear immediately.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does, the specific checks, and when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state the return format, but the phrase 'reports whether' implies a boolean result, which is adequate given the simplicity of the tool.

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 a baseline by describing 'receipt' as the full receipt JSON object. The description adds semantic value by specifying the receipt type ('agent-receipts/v1') and the specific verification checks performed, which enriches the meaning of the parameter beyond the schema's minimal 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('agent-receipts/v1 receipt'), and lists concrete validation details (Ed25519 signature, schema, payload-hash format, vault match). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like issue_receipt, which creates receipts, and export_audit_bundle, which exports audit data.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this before trusting a receipt presented by another agent or system.' It provides clear context but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or cite alternatives beyond the sibling list, though the siblings are not reasonable substitutes for verification.

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