verify_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that verification is Ed25519-based and requires the original signed bodies, which implies a read-only cryptographic operation. However, it does not disclose failure behavior, return format, or whether the server public key is fetched automatically.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the input instruction is concise without repeating the schema.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, zero parameter descriptions, and nested objects, but the description only covers the basic verification intent and input roles. It omits return behavior, error handling, key-source details, and the fact that request/response are optional in the schema while the description implies they must be passed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps the three parameters by describing them as 'the receipt plus the original request and response bodies that were signed,' giving semantic context the schema lacks. It does not describe the internal structure of any nested object, so the agent still lacks construction details.

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'), a precise resource ('an Ed25519 ScreenVerity receipt'), and the target ('the server public key'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like screen and sources.

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 implies when to use the tool by saying it verifies a receipt and asking for the original signed request and response bodies. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so the agent must infer usage context.

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