Verify a screening receipt

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

Annotations already signal read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: no API key required, the returned signature enables independent audit, receipt_type semantics for sanctions_screen vs predeal_verdict, and the practical limitation that sanctions-only coverage does not flag PEPs who are not also designated. This is genuinely transparent.

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?

The description is long but every sentence contributes: purpose, auth requirement, return contents, semantic meaning of receipt_type, the PEP limitation, and the triggering user context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps the most operationally important detail ('NO API KEY REQUIRED') near the start.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input origin, return shape, key field semantics, trust implications, and the user-facing caveat about coverage. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.

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 schema fully documents receipt_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent where receipt_id comes from: the receipt_id or verify_url field on a verdict, or from a receipt the user was handed. That helps the agent find the actual value to pass.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Independently verify an OilFlow screening receipt.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling screening tools by explaining that it verifies receipts rather than performing new screening checks, and it describes the concrete outputs (receipt, canonical payload string, HMAC-SHA256 signature).

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 an explicit use case: use this whenever a user has been handed a compliance receipt and wants to know whether it is genuine and what it covered. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent could route correctly.

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