noetic.receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add meaningful context by noting receipts are 'unsigned in MVP, integrity-checked,' which tells the caller something about trust guarantees. However, it does not clarify what 'verify' means behaviorally (e.g., does it throw, return a status, or just fetch), and it doesn't mention read-only semantics or error behavior.

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 short and front-loaded, stating the operation and a key limitation in one sentence. The abbreviation 'MVP' may be slightly unclear to an agent, and no structural organization is needed for such a brief description. It earns its place with no filler.

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 no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description leaves important context unaddressed: the meaning of a 'usage receipt,' the distinction between receiptId and sessionId, whether the operation is a fetch or a verify (or both), and what the response looks like. The integrity-check note helps, but the tool still cannot be reliably invoked without guessing parameter semantics.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by id' but doesn't map this to receiptId or explain the relationship between receiptId and sessionId. With two string parameters and no additional documentation, the agent cannot reliably know which parameter to populate or whether one is required.

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 gives a specific verb+resource pairing: 'Fetch or verify a usage receipt by id.' It clearly identifies what the tool acts on (usage receipts) and the action (fetch/verify). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like noetic.fetch or noetic.usage, but the object is specific enough that an agent can infer its role.

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 phrase 'by id' offers a clear entry point: the caller should supply an identifier. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over noetic.fetch, noetic.usage, or noetic.query, nor does it describe any prerequisites or exclusion conditions. It implies a use case rather than fully guiding selection among siblings.

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