commitment_receipt

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the receipt is signed with Ed25519, recomputed server-side, tamper-evident, and verifiable with a public key. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, providing the agent with important details about the tool's behavior and trust model. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tightly written in two sentences, front-loading the core purpose ('Issue a portable, signed attestation'), then adding essential context (live track record, verifiability, tamper-evidence). Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or 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 the tool's role as a receipt issuer, the description explains what it does, how the output is protected, and how it can be verified. There is no output schema, but the description implies the return is a verifiable attestation. It does not explicitly state the exact return format or any edge cases (e.g., what happens if commitment_id is invalid), leaving minor room for ambiguity.

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 covers both parameters (api_key and commitment_id) with full descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Issue') and resource ('attestation of your commitment's LIVE track record'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like verify_receipt (which verifies) and issue_receipt (which may issue a different receipt). It also explains the portable, verifiable nature of the output, making the tool's purpose 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 provides clear context: use this tool to issue a portable, signed attestation of a commitment's live track record. It also references verify_receipt as the way to verify the output, implying an alternative action. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or how it differs from sibling tools like issue_receipt or scan_for_receipts, so it falls short of full guidance.

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