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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it reveals the relationship between stories and their source posts and positions the tool as a verification layer rather than just a data fetch.

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 sentences with no filler. The core definition is front-loaded ('the receipts'), followed immediately by actionable guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, why it exists, and when to use it. No output schema exists, but the return value ('individual posts') is sufficiently self-describing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the story_id parameter. It does not explicitly name story_id, but 'the individual posts a story was assembled from' makes it evident that the parameter identifies a story whose constituent posts should be returned. For a single obvious integer parameter, this is adequate.

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 verb and resource: it returns 'the individual posts a story was assembled from — the receipts.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_social_posts or get_trending_stories by framing stories as summaries built from these posts.

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 explicitly says when to call it: 'Call this whenever a story matters enough to check' and explains it is the way to verify that a summary reflects its sources. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the usage context is clear.

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