agent-receipts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully adds critical security context ('The private key never leaves your machine') and output format details ('64-character hex string') that would otherwise be unknown. Does not mention idempotency or performance characteristics.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: (1) purpose and resource, (2) return format, (3) usage guidance, (4) security guarantee. Information is front-loaded and 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 simple parameter-less getter, the description is comprehensive. It compensates for the missing output_schema by specifying the return format (hex string) and explains the cryptographic context (Ed25519, signing receipts) and security model sufficiently 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?

Input schema contains zero parameters. According to scoring rules, 0 params establishes a baseline of 4. The description correctly requires no additional parameter clarification.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('Ed25519 public key') and clearly identifies its role in the receipt-signing ecosystem. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_receipt (which would use the private key) by specifying this retrieves the public component only.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use ('Share this key with clients or third parties so they can independently verify receipt signatures'), establishing the tool's purpose for external verification workflows. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives (e.g., contrasting with verify_receipt for internal verification).

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