Verify a payload receipt

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context by spelling out 'no network, no key, no account' and by noting the return includes both mechanical stages and the four trust questions, though the return detail overlaps an existing output schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The final sentence on return contents is the least essential given an output schema exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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 four-parameter, fully-covered schema with an output schema present, the description supplies the operational context an agent needs (offline execution, CLI equivalence, trust model) without needing to re-document returns or parameters.

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% and each rung, entryId pattern, and payload/receipt shape is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond 'EXACT registered payload bytes', so the 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 (verify) and resource (a Forestrie receipt) plus the exact inputs it binds against (registered payload bytes and an entry id). It never names its siblings verify_grant_receipt or decode_receipt, so the agent must infer the boundary, which keeps this just short of a 5.

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?

It conveys that the operation is offline and mirrors the `forestrie verify` CLI, which implies the context of use, but gives no explicit when-to-use versus verify_grant_receipt or decode_receipt, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'trust rung you choose'.

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