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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavior: receipts show completed, rejected, and uncertain operations but omit code, arguments, and result data; a running receipt may survive controller failure; and callers must not infer that a write did not happen. It also states required permissions.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains reasonably compact, though the sentence about reusing the executionId in execute is slightly more about a related tool than this one. Overall it is efficient and avoids filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description explains the return content at a useful level: operation statuses, absence of code/arguments/results, and failure caveats. It also states access requirements, leaving little an agent needs to know before calling it.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single executionId parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds that the executionId should be the original one used in execute, but it does not explain the UUID format or any other constraints beyond what the schema already declares.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read operation receipts for one code-mode execution, scoped to the same credential and project. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any named sibling tool.

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 clear operational context: use this to inspect receipts for an execution and reuse the original executionId to retrieve the recorded response without repeating changes. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name a sibling alternative, but the intended use is evident.

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