get_receipt

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context: raw prompt/response are never stored, receipts contain proof material only, and no wallet is needed. This clarifies the public nature and auth requirements beyond the annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences with the key action and constraints front-loaded. The free tag and public nature are stated first, followed by the content and the privacy caveat. Every sentence earns its place; no 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists the receipt's contents and clarifies the public nature. It covers the parameter adequately, and annotations handle safety. The only missing piece is an explicit note about the return structure, but the listed fields serve as a sufficient guide for a fetch operation.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for attestation_id ('Attestation id (att_…)'). The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'fetch' and the resource 'public receipt for an attestation', listing the specific proof material included (content hash, model, timestamps, Ed25519 signature, Merkle anchor proof). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on fetching a receipt rather than notarizing or verifying.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives like verify_attestation. The 'FREE' qualifier hints at a cost aspect but doesn't explain scenarios where this tool is preferred over its siblings.

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