check_computation_receipt

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it does not attest, echo values, or persist the receipt. This goes beyond what annotations provide and clarifies the tool's side-effect-free nature.

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 that states the main purpose and then lists explicit exclusions. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant or vague wording.

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?

With only two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description and schema together cover the tool's behavior, side effects, and return shape (field names only). It could explicitly state the return format as a list, but the schema's 'only its field names are returned' is sufficient for this simple check tool.

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 fully describes both parameters, including that the receipt is ephemeral and only field names are returned. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing the 'no echo values' behavior, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('check') and identifies the exact object ('receipt field presence'), while explicitly excluding attestation, echo, and persistence. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like prepare_attested_computation and inspect_attested_computation.

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 gives explicit negative guidance ('never attest, echo values, or persist'), which tells the agent when not to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or describe a positive 'use when' scenario, so it falls just short of a 5.

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