verify_prooflink_receipt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the required scope (prooflink:verify:read), the governance policy, and a notable side effect: every call is sealed with a ProofLink receipt. It also details the return components, including the tamper_detected flag and individual check results. However, it does not describe failure modes or error handling, so it is not a 5.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The supporting context about SHA-256 hash-chaining and return format is relevant. There is minor redundancy between 'Verify the cryptographic integrity' and the later enumeration of checks, but overall each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the single-parameter schema, lack of output schema, and the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, verification checks, return values, and access requirements. It stops short of full completeness by not addressing potential alternatives or edge cases, but within its own scope it is comprehensive.

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?

The input schema already provides a clear description of receipt_id ('The receipt ID to verify (16 hex characters)') with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter itself, only restating that it verifies receipts. This meets the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage without added value.

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 action and resource: 'Verify the cryptographic integrity of a ProofLink receipt.' It enumerates specific verification checks (hash integrity, chain link, schema completeness), making the purpose precise. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling verification tools like prooflink.verify_receipt or itsm_verify_receipt, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as prooflink.verify_chain or prooflink.search_receipts. It only states the purpose and permission requirements, leaving the agent without clear direction on selection among sibling tools. This is essentially no usage guidance beyond the implied task of verifying a receipt.

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