receipt_spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that this is a specification/reference (not an operational verifier), clarifying it provides instructions rather than performing verification. This goes beyond the annotation basics without contradicting them.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs essential information: the standard name, scope (schema/algorithms/canonical form/how-to-verify), and purpose (issue and verify compliant receipts). No wasted words.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers what it is and what it offers: the complete standard reference for vcr/1. It provides enough context for an agent to select it appropriately alongside the many sibling verification tools.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the schema requires no description. The description adds value by explaining what the returned spec content covers, though it doesn't address specific parameters because none exist. Baseline of 4 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 exposes the Verifiable-Claim-Receipt open standard (vcr/1), including schema, algorithms, canonical form, and verification guidance. This is a specific resource and distinctly separates it from sibling verification/issuance tools.

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 implies the tool is for learning or obtaining the spec, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like verify_receipt or issue_receipt. No 'when not to use' or alternative guidance is given.

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