vizier_verify_receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail about what the verification checks (token structure, expiration, hash binding), but says nothing about the result of a failed verification or whether failures raise or return a value, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the specific validation checks front-loaded.

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 verification tool with fully documented parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly complete. The only meaningful omission is failure/return semantics, which is not inferable from an absent output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema itself, establishing a baseline of 3. The phrase 'exact request/action hash binding' loosely ties to expected_target and expected_action_type, but adds no syntax or matching-precision 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?

States a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('cryptographic receipt or audit proof issued by Vizier'), then enumerates what is validated (structure, expiration, hash binding). This clearly separates it from vizier_screen_action and vizier_check_policy, though the description never names those siblings or contrasts the roles.

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?

No when-to-use, when-NOT-to-use, or prerequisite guidance is given. Nothing tells an agent whether this is the step after screening/checking, or under what conditions a receipt should be verified rather than merely inspected.

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