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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does so well: it states 'Read-only', 'append-only', 'Own rows only', and 'no staff fields'. It also reveals the API key header requirement and the presence of claim_sha256, giving useful behavioral context beyond a bare list operation.

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 dense and mostly front-loaded with the resource, ownership, and read-only nature. There is minor redundancy ('Your OWN' vs 'Own rows only') and a slightly metaphorical phrase ('what the door holds'), but every major fact is useful.

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 simple read-only receipt lookup with two conventional pagination parameters, the description covers endpoint, auth, scope, and return intent (claim hash verification). It omits explicit return format and error behavior, but no output schema exists and the tool is low-complexity.

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% and the description never mentions 'limit' or 'offset'. The parameter names and defaults carry some intrinsic meaning, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions or explain pagination behavior.

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?

Clearly identifies a specific resource: the caller's own contribution receipts. The endpoint 'GET /api/v1/contribute/receipts' plus 'Read-only' supplies the verb, and 'Own rows only, no staff fields' scopes it away from related contribution or staff tools.

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?

Gives an explicit use case: verifying that the canonical claim hash matches what was submitted. It also sets an ownership boundary ('Your OWN', 'Own rows only') and includes the auth prerequisite, though it does not name sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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