Get signed proof of the decisions on an effect

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: receipts are signed, signatures cover exact bytes in `body`, verification works offline against a published Ed25519 key, and the server does not need to be trusted. This meaningfully informs the agent about what the tool guarantees.

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 three focused sentences with no wasted words. The core behavior is front-loaded, then the cryptographic detail, then the practical use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned, what each receipt proves, how verification works, and when the tool should be invoked. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage and already documents `effect_id` as 'The effect to fetch receipts for'. The description mentions fetching receipts for 'one effect', which aligns with the parameter, but does not add additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('signed receipt for every decision made about one effect'), and a notable inclusion ('refusals included'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ratchet_list_effects or ratchet_get_effect.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when a human asks you to PROVE an action was or was not authorised'. It contrasts with the alternative behavior of merely asserting something, though it does not name a specific sibling tool as an alternative.

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