compute-ledger__carbon_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description fully clarifies read-only nature, output details (attestation_hash, receipt fields), and method logic based on workload declaration. No contradictions.

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 dense paragraph but front-loads the core purpose. It packs useful detail without excessive verbosity, though it could be broken into shorter sentences for clarity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately covers return values (object fields) and integrates well with sibling tools. It could mention error conditions or prerequisites but is largely complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining offset_ref as a retirement ID and implying entry_id as a work identifier. However, entry_id format or type is not elaborated.

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 it emits an x402-C carbon receipt for a recorded work entry, with specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from related tools like record_work and footprint.

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 specifies the context (recorded work entry) and optional offset_ref for carbon neutrality. It implicitly guides when to use but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not scenarios.

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