List Action Receipts

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds 'Free — no credits consumed' which is a cost behavior not captured by annotations. It also clarifies that receipts are scoped to the caller's API key ('owned by'), an access control detail. This goes beyond the structured fields, though it stops short of discussing error conditions or rate limits.

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 tightly written: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence usage context, a compact return structure, and three example prompts. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure front-loads the core purpose before adding workflow details.

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 a read-only, idempotent annotation profile, a full parameter schema, and an output structure explicitly described in the text. The description covers purpose, when to use it, behavioral quirks (free, owned by API key), and the return format. For this simple list operation, the context is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

All three parameters (bundle_id, limit, offset) are already described in the input schema with examples, so the schema covers 100% of the parameter semantics. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific syntax or format details, but it does provide example prompts that reference bundle_id. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score 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 opens with 'List signed action receipts...' which clearly states the verb and resource, scoped to 'an evidence bundle owned by your API key.' It distinguishes from sibling receipt.verify by noting that this tool lists receipts while verification is a separate step. This is a specific, well-differentiated purpose.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use after bundle.get, bundle.verify, bundle.notarize, or collection.add_document' to audit which agent actions were bound to which manifest hash, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also directs the user to pass a receipt_id to receipt.verify for independent verification, effectively naming the alternative for the next step.

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