Verify signed receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions EIP-712 format and payTo authorization, which is useful, but it omits what happens on failure (returns boolean? throws?), whether it is a pure read operation, or how strict the signer enforcement is. This is a moderate gap for a verification tool.

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?

A single, well-organized sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and the optional parameter. No fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 verifies a nested EIP-712 artifact with an optional signer, and there is no output schema. The description does not explain the return value, error behavior, or what constitutes a valid 'offer-receipt artifact'. Without annotations, this leaves the agent guessing about crucial execution semantics.

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 covers artifact with a basic structure description, but expectedSigner has no schema description. The description adds meaning for expectedSigner via 'payTo authorization', compensating partially. For artifact, it adds the EIP-712 format context. However, the overall parameter coverage is only 50%, and the added info is not comprehensive.

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 action ('Verify') and the specific resource ('offer-receipt artifact (EIP-712)'), and adds the optional expected-signer enforcement, distinguishing it from sibling tools like issue_receipt and verify_compliance_record.

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 gives clear situational context: verifying an offer receipt with optional signer enforcement. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, 'Verify' contrasts with issue_receipt and verify_compliance_record, and the optional enforcement clause clarifies when expectedSigner would be used.

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