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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tamper-evident nature and the returned fields plus cost, but says nothing about auth requirements, what happens when the receipt_id is unknown or malformed, or whether receipts expire — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb-resource-identifier, then the payload contents, then cost. Nothing is wasted or repeated.

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 no output schema, enumerating the receipt contents (tx hash, wallet, endpoint, amount, timestamp) is genuinely useful. For a simple single-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only error and auth behavior are absent.

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% and the single parameter has no description, so the description must compensate. It does, partially, by stating the identifier is a UUID, implying the expected format and that an opaque internal ID will not work, but it gives no example or validation rules.

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?

A specific verb ('Retrieve') plus a well-named resource ('tamper-evident compliance receipt') and the lookup key (UUID), which separates it from verify_payment and bureau_* verification tools. It does not clarify its relationship to the adjacent get_invoice, so the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: if you hold a receipt_id you call this to fetch it. The only explicit guidance is 'Free', which tells the agent there is no cost barrier, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_invoice or bureau_get_attestation.

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