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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by enumerating the return payload in the absence of an output schema. It does not cover error behavior for an unknown/expired receipt id.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the concept and then the return shape. No filler, though the return field list is dense and unformatted relative to its usefulness.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: the returned fields. Only the when-to-use context and failure modes are missing, which are minor for a simple lookup.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully explains the 32-hex receipt id and its source header. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, 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?

The description states a specific resource and what it embodies: the receipt proving what was delivered, the cost, and the hash. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never uses an explicit retrieval verb and does not contrast with any sibling (none of the siblings overlap meaningfully).

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, or on prerequisites. The only hint that this is a post-delivery proof step is implicit in the word 'delivery'; the fact that the id comes from the x-editalmd-recibo header lives in the schema, not the description.

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