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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is already clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the answer is only shown once released, alerting the agent to a conditional availability that the schema and annotations do not convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and key conditional behavior are immediately visible, and the single-sentence param guidance is handled in 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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema, this description is complete. It conveys what the tool does, what it takes, and the release-based constraint that affects expected results.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the receipt_id format and its provenance from submit_claim or contact_us. The description reinforces that the lookup is 'by its receipt ID' but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Look up') and resource ('a claim or a message') with a clear identifier ('receipt ID'). It is distinct from siblings like submit_claim and contact_us, which create items rather than retrieve statuses.

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 the appropriate context: after submitting a claim or message via submit_claim or contact_us, use this tool to look it up by receipt ID. It also conditionally notes that the answer appears only once released, though it does not explicitly name exclusion cases or alternatives beyond that implied flow.

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