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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'the full persisted receipt row (routing, cert, sovereignty fields + signature)' and notes typical latency (<200ms) and that it is a 'single indexed read'. This implies a read-only, fast operation without needing to state explicit 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 well-structured with clear sections (Inputs, Returns, Latency). Each sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, the input format, the return content, and expected performance. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 only lists receipt_id as a string with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by specifying the exact format 'GR-YYYY-NNNNNNN' and noting it is a required path parameter. This adds critical meaning 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 opens with a specific verb ('Retrieves'), a specific resource ('signed GhostRoute receipt'), and a precise identifier format ('GR-YYYY-NNNNNNN'). It also states the tool's purpose ('independent audit of a past sovereignty verdict'), which clearly distinguishes it from generic receipt lookups.

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 includes a 'Use this tool when' section with two concrete scenarios: confirming a receipt's contents/signature and reconciling an action log. This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or 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.