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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses auth requirements ('Requires project.read and MCP code mode'), what is included and excluded (completed/rejected/uncertain operations, no code/arguments/results), and a critical safety semantic ('a running receipt may survive a controller failure; never infer that its write did not happen'). That uncertainty/idempotency warning is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs for a mutation-adjacent read.

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?

Roughly four sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by output contents, safety warning, and workflow/prerequisite notes. Every sentence contributes, though the sentence about reusing code in execute is slightly tangential to a pure read operation.

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 1-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, returned data scope, prerequisite permissions, and the crucial uncertainty caveat. It could say more about the receipt's structure, but the essential context an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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 0% for the single executionId parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by calling it 'the original executionId' and tying it to one credential/project's execution and to re-invoking execute, but it does not clarify format or matching behavior beyond what the schema's uuid type already implies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read'), a precise resource ('operation receipts'), and an explicit scope ('for one code-mode execution made by this same credential and project'). No sibling among the 60+ tools covers code-mode execution receipts, so the purpose is unambiguous and separable.

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?

It gives real usage context: reuse the original executionId and code in execute to retrieve a recorded response 'without repeating changes,' which tells the agent when this tool is the right choice. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming a directly competing tool, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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