cedulon_verify_receipt

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries the burden of behavioral caveats. It adds the important warning that omitting expectIssuerKeyPem makes verification self-referential and 'any key satisfies' it, which prevents an agent from over-trusting a nominally verified receipt.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then delivers the single most important usage caveat, making every word earn 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?

With 7 optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no guidance on which parameter combinations are valid, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It explains the issuer-key pitfall but leaves the receipt/countersignature input representations and the verification result unspecified.

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 only 43%, and the free-text description explains only expectIssuerKeyPem behaviorally. The relationship between coseHex, receipt, counterCoseHex, publicKeyPem, and payeePublicKeyPem is left unstated, so an agent cannot confidently choose among the seven optional input modes from the description alone.

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 opens with the verb 'Verify' and names the specific resource: a spend receipt COSE_Sign1 plus the optional payee countersignature. This clearly separates it from spend/audit/export/status siblings and makes the tool's operation unambiguous.

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 concrete conditional guidance: supply expectIssuerKeyPem when you want to check against a key you already hold, and omit it when you accept the receipt's self-carried key. It does not name alternative tools, but the parameter-level when/how instructions are clear enough for correct invocation.

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