ep_submit_receipt

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

In the absence of annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: receipts are append-only, cryptographically hashed, and chain-linked, which implies immutability and auditability. It does not mention rate limits or potential side effects, but the key safety properties are sufficiently conveyed.

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 four sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and uses no filler. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured for agent consumption.

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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview of what to expect (append-only, cryptographic linking) and highlights critical parameters. Combined with the rich schema descriptions, the overall context is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly, though it could mention success or error conditions.

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?

With 91% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds emphasis that transaction_ref is required and that agent_behavior is the strongest signal, but this does not fundamentally add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Thus a baseline score 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 action (submit a transaction receipt) and target (EP ledger), and mentions key properties like append-only, hashed, and chain-linked. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as ep_batch_submit or ep_bind_receipt_to_commit, missing a opportunity to clarify when to use this specific tool.

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 mentions that an API key is required and emphasizes that transaction_ref is required and agent_behavior is the strongest signal. It does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or typical use cases beyond the API key requirement.

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