agent-receipts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It successfully explains the internal mechanism (extracts 12-field signable payload, canonicalizes, verifies against stored public key) and return value structure ('Returns verified: true if the signature is valid'). However, it omits error handling behavior (what happens if receipt_id doesn't exist) and doesn't explicitly state whether this is read-only or has side effects.

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. Front-loaded with the core action (cryptographic verification), followed by technical implementation details (12-field payload, canonicalization), return value specification, and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by conveying distinct information about mechanism, output, or context.

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 a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the cryptographic process, return value structure, and usage contexts. However, without an output schema, it could have elaborated on error cases (invalid signature vs missing receipt) or the full return object structure beyond the 'verified' field.

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% (receipt_id is fully documented in schema as 'The receipt ID to verify — must exist in local storage'). The description mentions 'stored receipt' which aligns with the parameter but doesn't add additional semantic meaning, syntax guidance, or examples beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states 'Cryptographically verify an Ed25519 signature on a stored receipt' providing specific verb (verify), resource (receipt), mechanism (Ed25519), and scope (tamper detection). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_receipt, get_receipt, or judge_receipt by emphasizing cryptographic integrity checking versus creation, retrieval, or content evaluation.

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 to audit receipts before using them as evidence or before completing payments based on agent work.' This provides clear context for invocation (audit scenarios, payment completion) and implicitly distinguishes from other receipt operations by focusing on tamper-evidence verification.

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