Verify Agent Receipt

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: side-effect free, success returns valid=true with specific fields (kind, receipt_id, tenant_id, normalized receipt), failures raise clear verification error. It also explains the optional validity_tier effect. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences, each purposeful. First sentence states purpose and usage. Second adds optional tier. Third clarifies exclusion. Fourth summarizes return behavior. No fluff, efficiently front-loaded with key info.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested object, optional validity tiers, multiple verification facets), the description is complete. It covers inputs, sources, exclusions, and outputs (success/failure). The presence of an output schema is noted but not shown; description still provides sufficient detail for agent selection.

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% for both parameters. The description adds significant meaning: for 'receipt', it clarifies it must be a complete signed object (not just ID) and lists valid sources; for 'validity_tier', it explains default 'operational' and that higher tiers are auditor-oriented, not needed for MCP handoff. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 a signed paybond.agent_receipt_v1 JSON object via offline Ed25519 signature check. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'paybond_verify_protocol_receipt_v1' by specifying not to use it for protocol authorization/settlement receipts.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'when you already have a signed paybond.agent_receipt_v1 JSON object and need an offline Ed25519 signature check'. Also explicitly tells what not to use it for: 'Do not use this for protocol authorization/settlement receipts—call paybond_verify_protocol_receipt_v1', giving a clear alternative.

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