zk_verify_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It hints at an external dependency ('connected Sovereign Enclave'), which is useful, but does not say whether the receipt is persisted, whether the enclave path is fallback or opt-in, what happens when no enclave is connected, or what permissions or latency are involved.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the primary action first and the alternate mode in parentheses. No waste, though the jargon density ('R1CS', 'Sovereign Enclave') without explanation slightly reduces immediate comprehension.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what comes back (a receipt string? a proof blob? an ID) and how the enclave mode differs. Instead it leaves the return shape, failure modes, and mode-selection unaddressed for a tool whose output an agent likely needs to act on.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the default authority label. The description adds only the 'bind into a receipt' framing, which is marginal beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact: generate a cryptographic commitment receipt bound to a claim, with a parenthetical alternate mode (R1CS proof via Sovereign Enclave). This distinguishes it reasonably from validate_claim and verify_step, though 'over a verified claim' is ambiguous about whether the claim must already be verified elsewhere.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus validate_claim or verify_step, no prerequisites stated (must the claim be pre-validated?), and no explanation of how to choose between the default receipt path and the enclave R1CS proof path. The agent must infer everything.

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