validate_receipt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It details the checks performed: signature, expiry, and required caveats. It also explains input flexibility (object/JSON string for receipt, inline PEM or file path for public key). This provides solid behavioral context.

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 well-structured sentences. First sentence covers purpose and context, second covers parameters. No wasted words; 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?

The description covers input well but lacks any mention of output or return value. For a validation tool, an agent needs to know whether it returns a boolean, throws on failure, or returns details. This omission makes it incomplete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by stating receipt can be object or JSON string, public_key can be inline PEM or file path, and required_caveats is an array of {type, value}. This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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 it validates a CRP 1.1 Compliance Receipt using a public key. It specifies the resource (receipt), the action (validate), and the context (federation primitive). This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit or verify_memory.

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 explains when to use the tool: to validate a receipt from another agent-memory server. It provides context that the public key comes from the issuer via export-pubkey. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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