verify_receipt_by_hash

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

Discloses that no API key is needed (auth requirement) and that it returns receipt details and cryptographic verification result. Since no annotations exist, the description covers key behavioral aspects for a read-only verification 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?

Two concise sentences with a clear use-case statement. No fluff, purpose and usage are front-loaded.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, auth, and return value for a simple tool. Lacks explanation of 'canonical hash' or error scenarios, but acceptable given minimal complexity.

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 description mentions 'canonical hash' which is already detailed in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no significant extra 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?

Clearly states it verifies a receipt by its canonical hash. The verb 'verify' and resource 'receipt by hash' are specific and distinguish it from the sibling 'verify_receipt' tool.

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?

Explicitly states the use case: check if an agent has a valid consent receipt before serving a request. Also notes it's public, no API key needed. However, it doesn't contrast with other verification tools like 'verify_receipt'.

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