Verify a grant receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds conceptual context (trust is chosen, leaf-is-grant) but no operational traits like auth needs, rate limits, or failure behavior beyond what the rich schema already conveys.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the distinguishing question. Efficient, with no filler, though the parenthetical enumeration of formats is somewhat dense.

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 a fully documented schema, an output schema covering returns, and rich annotations, the description only needs to establish purpose and the trust model, which it does. Minor gap: no explicit routing against the two sibling verify/decode tools.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the trust rungs and the entryId/committedGrant relationship. The description restates the raw-payload-plus-entry-id case but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Verify a Forestrie grant receipt against the committed grant') and frames its unique role as 'the tool that answers the append-authority question: the leaf IS the grant.' This differentiates it conceptually from generic verify_receipt/decode_receipt, though it never names those siblings to route the agent explicitly.

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?

Gives implied usage ('at a trust rung you choose', 'mirrors forestrie verify-grant') and clarifies the append-authority context, but offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives among verify_receipt and decode_receipt.

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