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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared by annotations, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: retention window (24h), public-by-ID access, no current occupancy guarantee, and the caveat that absence isn't proof of non-commit. These are non-obvious operational traits an agent needs.

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?

Very compact, telegraphic phrasing that front-loads the authoritative-or-unknown outcome. Every clause carries meaning (retention, public access, no occupancy guarantee). Slightly cryptic in register but no waste.

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-param read tool with a fully documented schema and readOnly annotation, the description covers the key operational caveats: retention limit, ID-based public access, and the expiration ambiguity. No output schema exists, so return-value description is a minor gap, but the core semantics are complete.

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 100%—the request_id schema already documents the canonical lowercase UUIDv4 format, retention, and the unknown/expired caveat. The description repeats the retention and unknown semantics but adds no new parameter-level 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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieving an authoritative historical batch outcome/receipt by ID. Clear what it does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like build or preview_build by name—the historical/retention framing implies the distinction.

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?

Implied usage: look up a past batch outcome. But no explicit statement of when to use this vs. build or preview_build, and no guidance on handling the unknown/expired case beyond a terse note. Adequate but gaps remain.

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