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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful temporal detail: the confirm link is only present while the intake is still confirmable and the receipt is current/preliminary. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 efficient sentence with the key scoping phrase front-loaded ('Fetch the current receipt') followed by a compact parenthetical list of response contents. No filler or repeated 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the main return elements: status, confirm link (with a validity condition), and preliminary data. It is slightly terse about what 'preliminary' means and does not discuss error conditions, but for a simple read-only two-parameter tool this is adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents intake_id and poll_token, including their provenance ('from a previous submission', 'returned once on that submission'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning; it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the current receipt for a submitted intake') and then enumerates exactly what the receipt contains: status, a confirm link while still confirmable, and preliminary data. This clearly separates a read/status operation from the sibling submission and estimate 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 phrase 'for a submitted intake' and 'while still confirmable' gives a clear temporal context: call this after an intake has been submitted and while confirmation is still possible. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer when it applies.

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