Verify a transparency receipt

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

The description discloses detailed behavioral traits beyond annotations: the §7 algorithm steps, key loading from environment or API, optional Bitcoin check, and dependency on the SDK's scitt module. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds substantial context without contradiction.

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 verbose but well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then explains modes, return values, and key loading. Every sentence adds value, but some details (e.g., 'SCITT verification requires the SDK's scitt module') could be more concise. Still, it is effective and not wasteful.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, multi-mode behavior), the description is remarkably complete. It explains return fields for transparent_statement, key resolution, optional parameters (txid, issuer_public_key_hex), and dependencies, leaving little ambiguity.

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?

Every parameter has a detailed description in the input schema, and the tool description adds further context (e.g., 'looks up the chain entry from the public verifier' for sequence, 'base64/base64url or hex string' for transparent_statement). Schema coverage is 100%, and the description enriches understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Verify a LedgerProof receipt.' It distinguishes between two operational modes (sequence vs transparent_statement) and explains what each does. It is distinct from sibling tools (check_anchor, hash_artifact, issue_receipt) by focusing on verification.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode: provide sequence for API-based chain entry lookup, or transparent_statement for local verification with the §7 algorithm. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but gives enough context for an agent to decide.

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