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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool returns a receipt containing status, a confirm link (while confirmable), and preliminary data. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context about the response contents.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('Fetch the current receipt') and lists the key contents. It is concise, with no redundant words or filler, and every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple (two required parameters, read-only, no output schema). The description explains what is returned (status, confirm link, preliminary) and indicates the confirm link is time-bound ('while still confirmable'). This is sufficient for an agent to know the tool's output shape, though it could clarify the format of the receipt or error scenarios, but given the low complexity, it is nearly 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 description coverage is 100%: both intake_id and poll_token are documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states (e.g., that these come from a previous submission). Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full parameter documentation.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('current receipt for a submitted intake') and enumerates the returned fields (status, confirm link, preliminary). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_preliminary_estimate (which fetches estimates) and submit_total_loss_intake (which submits).

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 implies usage for checking status after a submission, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or mentions of alternative tools for related tasks (e.g., getting estimates). The context is clear from the name and title, but explicit guidance is absent.

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