prooflink.search_receipts

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

With no annotations provided, the description compensates by disclosing the read-only audit scope, the required OAuth scope, and the governance/sealing behavior. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not address error handling or output details.

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 short paragraphs with every sentence earning its place: purpose, filter reference, scope requirement, and governance. It is front-loaded with the primary function and avoids 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?

For a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filter compatibility, auth scope, and safety profile. It does not describe the return format, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor omission.

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 both parameters (limit, container) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the 'recent' qualifier and notes parity with get_receipt_chain, but no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool searches recent ProofLink receipts for audit/reconstruction purposes, using a specific verb ('search') and resource. It also references get_receipt_chain to convey filter compatibility, distinguishing it from chain-based retrieval.

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 provides a clear use case ('ledger-backed post-hoc reconstruction') and notes that the same filters as get_receipt_chain apply, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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