Verify receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the input types but not whether the operation is read-only, what the result means (e.g., found/not found), error behavior, or side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action and ledger context, and avoids redundant detail or fluff.

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?

Input-side context is well covered by the description and schema, but the absence of an output schema means the agent still does not know what a successful verification returns (boolean, record, proof). The description is adequate for a simple tool but has a notable gap around outcomes.

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 schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage; the description adds the 'or' relationship and clarifies that one of the two inputs is expected, plus the connection to the seal tool's output. This is a modest but useful enrichment.

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 states a specific verb ('Verify') against a named resource (seal/APEX PSI immutable ledger) and identifies the counterpart to the seal tool. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like seal, audit, and cite.

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?

It establishes when to use the tool: after sealing, with either a receipt from the seal tool or a raw hash. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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