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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses privacy ('No public sharing'), the negative side-effect boundary ('Does not approve delivery, release money or independently verify claims'), auth ('Requires API key'), and optimistic-concurrency semantics. It omits what happens on a version conflict, which would complete the picture.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the guardrails in short declarative sentences. Dense but every sentence carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

For a nested-payload mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers privacy, auth, side-effect limits and versioning. Remaining gaps are error/conflict behavior and what a successful save returns, which are modest given no output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it maps the receipt payload ('outcomes, artifacts, self-reported checks, actions and limitations') and explains expected_version=0 semantics, which the schema alone does not convey. submission_id's UUID format is left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Save'), a specific resource ('private structured receipt'), and the scope ('for a submission you own before buyer review'). This clearly separates it from read-side siblings like get_delivery_receipt and from submit_deliverable.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: read the current version first, use expected_version=0 only for a new receipt, and it operates before buyer review. It does not explicitly name read siblings or say when to skip writing a receipt, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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