prooflink.verify_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does well by explicitly stating 'Read-only' and 'without granting mutation rights'. It also adds governance context (Arbiter policy, cryptographic receipt sealing) and permission requirements, but it omits error behavior and result format.

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 and front-loaded, stating the primary purpose in the first sentence. It packs essential context into four sentences without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, and safety, but does not explain what the verification result looks like or what happens on invalid/nonexistent receipt IDs. This gap prevents a higher score.

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, receipt_id, is already described with type and format. The description's 'by ID' adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 opens with 'Read-only audit scope: verify one ProofLink receipt by ID', which clearly states the verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from mutation rights and identifies it as an alias for verify_prooflink_receipt, differentiating it from siblings like get_receipt_chain.

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 provides clear context by positioning this as a read-only audit tool and stating the required scope. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives beyond the alias, but the use case is well implied by 'Read-only audit scope'.

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