Issue signed receipt

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

The description discloses a key side-effect ('counter-signs into the ledger when configured') and the dual issuance, but it does not address failure modes, authorization prerequisites, or reversibility. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and these gaps limit transparency.

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 a single sentence that starts with the key action and covers all major aspects: issuance of the receipt, the compliance record, and the conditional ledger signing. It is free of filler and efficiently structured.

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 has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too high-level. It explains the core action but does not describe required inputs, the meaning of the compliance record, or expected behavior/response. This leaves the agent without sufficient context to invoke the 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?

Schema coverage is only 22%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the 9 parameters beyond the sparse schema descriptions. It gives no indication of how parameters like payer, settledAt, or taxScheme are used, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Issue' and identifies two distinct resources (x402 offer-receipt and Tersign compliance record), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like verify_receipt and record_refund. The phrase 'for a settled payment' adds precision to the tool's scope.

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 provides clear context by indicating this tool is used after a payment is settled, which helps differentiate it from verification or dispute-related siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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