issue_receipt

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it recomputes the verdict (never signs supplied results), uses Ed25519, and produces a receipt verifiable by anyone with the public key. This significantly exceeds the basic readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 three dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the action and key differentiator, and each subsequent sentence adds meaningful context.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown but present), so return values are covered. The description explains the core guarantee and self-contained nature well. Minor gap: could reference receipt verification or related tools like verify_receipt, but not required.

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 100%, with detailed explanations for all three parameters. The description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verifies a claim server-side and issues a portable signed receipt, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from verify_* siblings by focusing on the receipt issuance rather than just verification.

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 that this tool is for obtaining a signed receipt after verification, and explains the key guarantee of recomputation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use scenarios, though the context is strong enough for selection.

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