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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a small amount beyond that by specifying the exact endpoint shape and that exactly one receipt is returned, but it does not describe return behavior, error cases, or auth requirements.

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 three short clauses with no filler. The endpoint is front-loaded, the lookup modes are stated immediately, and the read-only behavior closes it efficiently.

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?

With six parameters, zero required, and a rich set of sibling tools, the description is thinner than ideal. The presence of an output schema and detailed parameter descriptions in the schema helps, but the description does not clarify when no parameters are acceptable, which lookup key to prefer, or how the controller-signature parameters relate to the receipt 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?

Schema description coverage is 67%, and the schema already explains nonce, leave_token, controller_signature, and controller_public_key. The description adds the useful detail that hash and version are alternative lookup keys via '?hash= or ?version=', which is not otherwise stated, but it does not deeply clarify how the cryptographic or auth parameters interact.

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 the HTTP verb and resource ('GET /api/hold') and the deliverable ('One GRITH-HOLD/1 receipt'), so the agent knows it retrieves a single hold receipt by hash or version. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like hold_trail, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hold_trail or other receipt-related tools. The only usage hint is '?hash= or ?version=' and 'Read only,' which is context but not explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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