ep_verify_receipt

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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, the description adds behavioral detail by explaining the verification process (signature and Merkle inclusion) and the return structure (valid/invalid, claim fields, anchor status). It aligns with annotations and provides additional context.

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 two efficient sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second sentence adds return details and a usage statement. No fluff or redundancy.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, returns, and use case. It could mention error conditions or what happens with invalid IDs, but overall it is largely complete.

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 fully describes the parameter with its ID format (ep_rcpt_...). The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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 it verifies a trust receipt, specifying the target resource exactly ('trust receipt') and the actions (signature and Merkle inclusion verification). It distinguishes from sibling verify tools that handle commits, delegations, or handshakes by focusing on receipts.

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 a clear use case: 'use it to independently confirm a receipt was issued by EP and has not been tampered with.' It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use, but the context of use is well implied.

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