issue_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals it returns an Ed25519-signed receipt and may return specific policy errors. It does not discuss side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but the core behavior is well-explained.

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and key instructions. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the return value and error conditions. It could mention the receipt format in more detail, but the core functionality is adequately covered.

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 coverage is 86%, providing most parameter details. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline. It does not elaborate on action_type enum or action_context structure, but the schema suffices.

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 issues a cryptographically signed receipt, differentiating it from siblings like check_balance or get_policy. The verb 'issue' and specific output 'Ed25519-signed receipt' make the 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 specifies to use this tool 'BEFORE your agent takes an action,' providing clear timing. It also instructs to stop and notify on POLICY_DENIED or POLICY_ESCALATION_REQUIRED. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools for receipt verification.

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