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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload is JSON and carries an 'HMAC v2' signature, which hints at verification/signing behavior, but it never says what happens on a missing or unverifiable receipt.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with the identifier requirement stated up front; nothing is padded or redundant. The only drag is that several tokens are spent on unexplained abbreviations rather than useful information.

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 simple one-parameter getter this is thin: no output schema exists, and the description does not describe the receipt structure, the meaning of the language/HMAC notes for the caller, or error behavior. An agent knows it fetches something, but not enough to use the result confidently.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description carries the full burden — and it only echoes the parameter name ('por receiptId') without giving format, expected ID shape, or example. No compensating detail is provided.

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 verb/resource pair ('Obtiene un Receipt ... por receiptId') is identifiable, and the closing 'No es DTE/SII' differentiates it from tax-document tools. But qualities like 'élite', 'NFA 6 idiomas' and 'HMAC v2' are unexplained domain jargon that add no clarifying power, and the description never contrasts itself with the nearby temple_list_receipts sibling.

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 only usage signal is a negative one: 'No es DTE/SII', which tells the agent this is not a Chilean tax document. There is no guidance on when to call this single-receipt fetch versus temple_list_receipts, temple_verify, or temple_validate_pass.

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