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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two non-obvious behaviors: signature verification over the published canonical representation and the absence of vendor calls. It also hints at the not_found outcome. It does not explicitly say read-only, but the get prefix and 'No vendor calls' imply it, which is adequate given the tool's simple nature.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds the verification behavior, and the third adds the vendor-call constraint. No word is wasted, and structure is clear.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary return (canonical payload or not_found) and a key side behavior (signature verification). However, it leaves unclear what happens if the signature is invalid or how verification integrates with the returned payload. This ambiguity prevents a higher score.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the meaning that runId is the identifier used to resolve a meter receipt, which is mildly helpful but somewhat redundant with the parameter name. It does not explain the run-id concept or the payload structure further, leaving a modest gap for a single parameter.

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 ('Resolve'), resource ('one meter receipt'), and identifier ('by its run id'). It further clarifies the output as the same canonical payload the day view serves or not_found, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_meter_receipt and run_meter_probe.

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 clearly signals when to use the tool: when you have a run id and need the canonical receipt payload. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the run-id scoping is sufficient context to select it over get_meter_receipt. No misleading guidance is present.

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