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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the receipt is 'persisted' and its contents are 'frozen at proposal time,' telling the agent this is a historical snapshot rather than live state, and it names what the payload may contain (counted_evidence, coverage, other-currency exclusion). It does not say what happens when no receipt exists or whether access is restricted beyond the authorization precondition.

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 sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence is dense with domain jargon (counted_evidence, other-currency exclusion) but each term carries information about the payload, so nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still sketches the receipt's contents. Combined with annotation coverage of the read-only profile, this is sufficient for a simple three-parameter read tool; only the missing action_id semantics and the no-receipt case keep it from being complete.

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 67%: account_id and workspace_id are documented in the schema, but action_id is bare. The description only indirectly explains action_id by tying the receipt to 'an authorized proposed action,' leaving the agent to infer that action_id identifies that action. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get the persisted decision receipt for an authorized proposed action.' That is clearly narrower than get_action or list_actions. It stops short of naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary between a receipt and an action record itself.

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 phrase 'for an authorized proposed action' implies a precondition (the action must be authorized and proposed), which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no alternative such as get_action, get_action_policy or get_action_batch is mentioned for cases where no receipt exists.

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