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

The description indicates a read-only retrieval action ('Return'), which implies no side effects. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose how optional parameters affect the returned templates, whether there is filtering or scoring behavior, or whether these are static templates or dynamically generated.

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 a single, scannable sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then lists the template categories. There is no wasted wording, and the structure makes the core purpose immediately readable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure is covered, but the description still leaves major gaps: optional parameter semantics are unexplained, there is no use-case guidance, and the relation to many sibling receipt/pack tools is unclear. A more complete description would explain how the optional IDs and minimum_score shape the result.

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 does not explain any of the three parameters. receipt_id, workflow_id, and minimum_score are left entirely to inference, and the description provides no compensation for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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: it returns agent run receipt templates, and it lists the domains covered (identity, context, tools, egress, approval, evidence). This makes the core purpose clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from widely overlapping sibling 'pack' 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recipes_agentic_approval_receipt_pack or other pack tools. The description only says what is returned and provides no context for selecting it, no exclusions, and no preferred scenarios.

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