Verify a receipt

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

Beyond readOnlyHint, the description discloses Ed25519 signature checking with the publisher's key, optional exact-output file verification, and that the file never leaves the machine. It does not describe what the tool returns or how invalid signatures are reported, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 two tight sentences, front-loads the core verification action, and includes only useful details about file inputs and privacy. No wording is wasted.

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?

It covers inputs and privacy well, but with no output schema and no explanation of return values or failure modes, an agent lacks the full picture of what verification results look like. For a cryptographic verification tool, the description should say more about outcomes.

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 100%, so the schema already names and documents all four parameters. The description adds useful semantics by clarifying that the file may be provided as file_path, pdf_base64, or sha256, and reinforces the local-only processing constraint.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: check a receipt's Ed25519 signature, optionally verifying that a file matches the output it describes. This clearly distinguishes verify_receipt from sibling tools like render_pdf and list_templates.

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 explains the optional file-checking use case and lists the three accepted ways to supply the file: file_path, pdf_base64, or sha256. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or compare it with siblings, but the verification context is clear.

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