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 discloses that the DRAT check is re-run, the counterexample is re-simulated, and the hash chain is recomputed, emphasizing that the verdict is re-derived rather than read from the receipt. This builds trust without needing annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the purpose, then add process details, and finally emphasize the trust model. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a verdict) or how the result is presented. It also lacks guidance on how this differs from sibling tools, leaving some gaps given the complex domain of proof verification.

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 0% and the only parameter, receipt_path, is not explained in the description. The description refers to 'the receipt' but never clarifies what the path should point to or any constraints, leaving the parameter semantics to the name alone.

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 opens with 'Verify a logic-equivalence receipt,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like verify_certificate by focusing on receipts, and adds details about re-running DRAT proof checks and recomputing hash chains.

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 when to use the tool (when you have a receipt to verify) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like check_drat or verify_certificate. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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