get_receipt_chain

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

Description discloses the required scope 'ledger:audit:read' and mentions governance and cryptographic sealing, adding meaningful context beyond the absent annotations. However, it does not explain behavior when tampering is detected or return format specifics.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses two compact paragraphs covering function, output, and access requirements. No redundant words.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description states that receipts are returned chronologically with full chain verification, covering the main expected outcome. Scope and governance details are present, but alternative tool comparison and edge-case behavior are missing.

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?

Input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (limit and container), and the description adds no extra parameter semantics. High schema coverage (100%) warrants the baseline score of 3.

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?

Description clearly states 'Fetch and verify the complete ProofLink receipt chain from iTechSmart's production ledger', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling verify/search tools by emphasizing the complete chain and chronological order.

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 implies use for retrieving the full receipt chain but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like prooflink.search_receipts or prooflink.verify_chain. No when-not guidance is provided, forcing the agent to infer usage.

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