check_computation_receipt

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explicitly stating it never attests, echoes values, or persists the receipt, clarifying the tool's side-effect-free nature and its limited output (field presence only). This supplements the annotation coverage without contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence. It states the primary action first ('Check receipt field presence only') and follows with concise constraints. Every word serves a purpose, with no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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's simplicity and the rich parameter schema, the description is mostly complete. The receipt schema explicitly notes that only field names are returned, which covers return semantics. The description itself doesn't explicitly state the output format, but combined with the schema it is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. A slight gap is not describing potential error conditions or edge cases, but these are minor for a read-only check.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. For example, the receipt parameter schema already states 'only its field names are returned', and the uri is described as the URI of the attested computation. The description adds no further semantics, so a baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check receipt field presence only' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also defines boundaries with 'never attest, echo values, or persist the receipt', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like prepare_attested_computation or inspect_attested_computation that likely perform those 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 description provides clear negative usage guidance: never attest, echo values, or persist. This implies that if an agent needs those operations, it should use a different tool. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or specify exact conditions such as 'use only when you need to verify presence', the constraints are informative enough to route an agent correctly.

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