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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds useful content-level context by naming the receipt fields (price, payment mode, content hash), but says nothing about auth requirements, whether the receipt is immutable, or failure modes. With annotations carrying the behavioral profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though so terse that it skirts under-specification rather than achieving a clean, complete statement.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does some of the work an output schema would do by naming the returned fields (price, payment mode, content hash). Combined with full parameter coverage in the schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the trigger condition and error behavior are 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%: the single `id` parameter is documented as coming from the x-editalmd-recibo header, which is the key piece of information. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 for schema-covered params 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?

The description names the resource ("Recibo de uma entrega") and enumerates its payload — price, payment mode, and content hash — so an agent understands it returns receipt data for a delivery. It never states an explicit verb (fetch vs. create), though the readOnlyHint and the required receipt id make the retrieval reading clear. No sibling tool competes in this space, so differentiation is not a concern.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this tool, what precedes it, or what alternatives exist. The only implicit cue is that a receipt id must already be known, but the description never says so. The agent must infer the entire call context.

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