verify_receipt

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states the action and public nature, but omits behavioral traits such as what happens on failure, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation-capable tool.

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 sentence, front-loading the action. It is concise but could benefit from more detail without losing efficiency.

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 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or parameter relationships, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 has 4 required parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the role of any parameter (e.g., receipt_id, canonical_hash), failing to add meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Verify a receipt's cryptographic integrity.' This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like verify_receipt_by_hash, which likely uses a different input.

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 notes 'Public — no API key needed,' providing clear context for when to use this tool (public access without authentication). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons with alternatives like verify_receipt_by_hash.

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