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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the 90-day post-deletion retention window, the cost (free), the authentication requirement, and the privacy model — receipts contain fingerprints and times, never content. It also documents how to verify signatures via a public key endpoint, which is material behavior the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with what receipts are and what they contain, then retention/cost/auth, then verification. Three compact sentences with no filler; the verification endpoints are genuinely useful rather than padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so fully: it enumerates the event types and clarifies that fingerprints and times (not content) are returned. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the result is missing.

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 100% and the single owner_ticket parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only restates that owner_ticket is required, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the 'own_' prefix already in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (receipts) and enumerates the exact contents: store time, every collection event (proof of delivery), and the terminal outcome (deleted, expired, abuse removal). An agent can immediately tell this apart from the storage/retrieval siblings.

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?

Provides clear context on when the tool is usable: after the item is gone, within a 90-day window, free of charge, and gated on the owner_ticket. No alternative sibling offers receipts so explicit when-not guidance is unnecessary, but it stops short of stating the purpose-level use case (auditing/disputes).

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