itsm_verify_receipt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does state the return values (hash, chain position, verification URL), which gives some insight into the verification outcome. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., is it read-only?), failure modes, or prerequisites (e.g., the receipt must have been embedded via itsm_embed_receipt). This partial disclosure earns a mid-range score.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the purpose and the key output fields without wasteful text.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: it verifies a receipt in an ITSM ticket and enumerates the return values. It does not explicitly note that the ticket must already have a receipt embedded (via itsm_embed_receipt), but given the low complexity and the presence of sibling tools with similar names, the description is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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% and the only parameter (ticket_id) is described as 'Ticket ID to verify'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the use case. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('ProofLink receipt embedded in an ITSM ticket'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like prooflink.verify_receipt or verify_prooflink_receipt by specifying the ITSM context. The scope is unambiguous.

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 the tool is used when verifying a ProofLink receipt that is embedded in an ITSM ticket. It gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. No competing tool is directly referenced, but the embedded-in-ITSM qualifier provides enough guidance.

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