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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains what the receipt contains, which is useful context for a likely read-only lookup, but it does not explicitly state the operation type, authorization requirements, or possible side effects.

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?

The description is a single focused sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the key return fields. There is no filler or redundant 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 receipt lookup with no output schema, this description provides enough context: it names the output fields, and the schema supplies the id/header source. It could mention error conditions or response format, but those are not critical for basic invocation.

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?

The only parameter, id, is fully described in the schema, including its origin in the x-editalmd-recibo header. The tool description does not add extra meaning to the parameter, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies the domain (uma entrega), the deliverable (recibo), and its main contents (preço, modo de pagamento, hash). However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and does not directly contrast with sibling tools.

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 usage context is implied: the receipt is obtained from a delivery, and the id comes from the header x-editalmd-recibo. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool instead of alternatives or when not to use it.

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