xlsx_verify_receipt

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: three failure modes (no receipt, invalid signature, hash mismatch) and what the tool returns. 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (function, failure modes, usage). It is front-loaded with purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'verify a workbook's' repeated), but overall efficient for the information conveyed.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return structure (signature valid, hash matches, claims) and usage context. However, it omits parameter details and does not fully list the returned claims, leaving gaps for an agent.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of the two parameters (file_b64, workbook_handle). An agent cannot determine which to use or their semantics from the description alone. This is a critical gap.

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 workbook's AI-generation receipt, distinguishing it from siblings like xlsx_receipt (generation) and xlsx_verify_stamp. It specifies the exact operation: checking signature, content hash, and returning claims.

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 'USE WHEN' section provides explicit guidance: when a workbook claims AI provenance or for auditing. It also includes a caveat about honesty. No explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but sibling differentiation is implied.

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