agent-receipts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully communicates the cryptographic re-signing behavior ('re-signs with Ed25519'), state transition mechanics (pending to completed/failed/timeout), and return value ('updated signed receipt'). Minor gap: does not specify error behavior when attempting to complete non-existent or already-completed receipts.

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?

Five sentences with zero redundancy: purpose, mechanism, usage context, constraint, and return value. Each sentence earns its place. The description is front-loaded with the core action and maintains high information density throughout.

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 complex 13-parameter stateful tool with cryptographic operations, the description adequately covers the workflow (two-phase tracking), state machine constraints, and return value despite the absence of annotations or output schema. Could be improved with error condition specifics, but sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by semantically grouping the 13 parameters into 'execution results, costs, and output data,' providing conceptual structure that helps an agent understand what information to aggregate when calling the tool.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource combination ('Finalize a pending receipt') and scope ('recording execution results, costs, and output data'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool create_receipt by positioning itself as the second phase of a two-phase tracking workflow.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use after create_receipt... two-phase tracking') and critical constraints ('Cannot complete an already-completed receipt'). The temporal sequencing relative to create_receipt provides clear decision criteria for tool selection.

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