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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: required OAuth scope store:inventory:receive, fresh consent plus EDIT_LISTINGS, a one-listing-per-nine-minute plan limit, privacy redactions (approval references and destination delivery identifiers omitted), and an explicit failure list including revoked consent, changed versions, holds, expired approval and conflicting keys. It is also self-consistent with the read-only annotation via 'Read-only; checks current receipt consent and native store authority.' The only blemish is that the 'Record newly received units' sentence belongs to the execute sibling, but the explicit read-only statement keeps this from being a contradiction.

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 paragraph is dense and run-on, stacking consent, approval, failure modes and recovery advice into undifferentiated clauses. Several sentences describe the preparation and execution steps rather than this read-only call, so they consume space without helping an agent invoke this tool. Only the first sentence is properly front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description does cover auth scopes, failure modes and privacy redactions. What it fails to do is clearly bound this tool's own scope: the mixing of receipt-entry and approval semantics leaves the agent unsure whether the call performs any mutation, which matters even for a simple read.

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 100% and the single plan_id parameter is already documented as 'Exact stock receipt plan ID returned by preparation.' The description reinforces that the original plan ID must be used ('original plan, stable key and native bound approval', 'recover the original operation'), which adds a small amount of meaning, but with one fully documented parameter the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opening clause, 'Read the exact owned receipt plan and its native review status without recording stock,' states a clear verb and resource, and the title matches. But the next two sentences ('Record newly received units...' and 'Review and approve its exact native plan before execution') describe actions belonging to the execute/prepare siblings, so the agent must disambiguate whether this tool itself mutates anything. No sibling tool is named, so differentiation from prepare_stock_receipt and execute_stock_receipt is left implicit.

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 through workflow language: review the native plan before execution, execute only with the original plan, and recover the original operation after a lost response. It also excludes a wrong consent path ('Existing stock-correction consent does not authorize receipt entry'). However, it never explicitly says when to call this tool rather than prepare_stock_receipt or execute_stock_receipt, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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