ep_check_signoff

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the possible return statuses and the requirement to atomically consume the receipt at the executor's choke point, preventing misuse. This adds substantial context on top of readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, with no 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 consists of four sentences, each providing necessary information: purpose, parameter, return values, and a caveat. It is efficient and front-loaded, though slightly longer than minimal, but every sentence 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?

The description fully equips an agent to call the tool: it specifies the trigger condition, the required parameter, the expected return values, and the critical operational caveat. With a single parameter and no output schema, nothing essential is missing.

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 description only says 'Pass the receipt_id' which adds nothing beyond the schema's own description of the parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not enhance parameter understanding; it merely restates the obvious.

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 states a specific verb ('poll') and resource ('pending authorization'), and clarifies it operates after ep_guard_action returns BLOCKED. It also lists the return statuses. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ep_verify_receipt, so it is clear but not explicitly distinguishing.

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 gives explicit usage context: use this tool after ep_guard_action returns BLOCKED, and warns that approval alone is not permission to execute, implying the need to consume. It does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, so it provides clear context but no exclusions.

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