verify_receipt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses local crypto, no network, the signature verification against LocalGov.jp pubkey, expiration check, and the live pubkey fetch fallback. This goes well beyond the schema.

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-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every detail (crypto type, network behavior, pubkey fallback) earns its place.

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?

The description is thorough for a verification tool, but because no output schema exists, it should mention the return value or failure behavior. Otherwise the tool's result is left ambiguous.

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 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the 'pubkey' omission triggers a live fetch, and by contextualizing the receipt as an Ed25519-signed envelope.

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 verifies an Ed25519-signed citation receipt from a specific API endpoint. It also specifies the two checks (signature and expiration), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from all unrelated sibling tools.

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 implies usage for verifying receipts previously issued by /api/cite/:grant_id and explains the optional pubkey behavior. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or alternatives, but the sibling context makes confusion unlikely.

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