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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: it never returns ciphertext or plaintext, it does not consume the secret, the status reflects a server event rather than proof of human reading, and no credentials/account are needed. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before calling a receipt-based read.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the most important constraint (no plaintext, no consumption). The trailing 'No API key, no account and no sign up' is slightly redundant with openWorldHint=false but still conveys auth-free access in one line.

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 two-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (status and timestamps) and what is not (secret contents). The only gap is that the possible status values or their meaning are not enumerated, which would help an agent interpret results.

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%, with both secret_id and receipt_token documented including their hex patterns and the note that receipt_token 'reads metadata or burns; cannot reveal'. The description reinforces that the receipt token is separate and non-credential, but adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource (read status/timestamps of a one-time secret) with the key scoping constraint that it uses the receipt token and does not consume the secret. This implicitly but clearly separates it from reveal_one_time_secret (returns no ciphertext/plaintext) and burn_one_time_secret (does not consume), so an agent can pick correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a clear condition for use: check status/timestamps with the separate receipt token without burning the secret. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools (reveal_one_time_secret, burn_one_time_secret) or state when-not to use it, but the negative constraints (no plaintext, no consumption) effectively define the boundary.

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