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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds non-obvious behavior: pagination is stateful via a run_id carried from the first page, and each receipt must keep its month, supplier and units distinct. The caveat "links are not routes" warns against a plausible misinterpretation of the returned data.

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 purpose before the data-semantics caveat and then the pagination instruction. No filler, though "links are not routes" is cryptic enough that it may need one more clarifying clause to earn its place.

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-shape explanation is not required, and the description focuses on the parts an agent cannot infer: pagination continuity and receipt granularity. It stops short of saying whether the run_id must be reused with identical filters or how long it stays valid, which matters for a stateful paged read.

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%, so the description carries the burden and only partly delivers. It explains run_id's provenance (first page of a paged sequence) and implies mine_id is an MSHA mine identifier, but limit and offset get no mention and the run_id format or lifetime is never clarified.

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 names a specific verb and resource: "Get reported coal receipts linking an MSHA mine to power plants," which tells an agent exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, but none of the listed siblings overlaps with mine-to-plant shipment receipts, so ambiguity is low.

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 line "Pass run_id from the first page when requesting subsequent pages" is real usage guidance for pagination, which is valuable. However, there is no statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusion (e.g., whether a power-plant-side view exists), so guidance remains implied.

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