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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds genuinely new behavior: receipts are immutable and revisions are new receipts with the old one as parent, only public receipts are readable on every plan, withheld links are surfaced via redactedEvidence, and a call consumes quota while a rejected argument costs nothing. That is real operational context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core definition comes first, then usage routing, then parameter notes, then behavior. Every clause carries information, though the packed parenthetical lists (field enumerations, quota asides) make it heavier than it strictly needs to be.

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, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the remaining gaps: how to obtain the id, immutability semantics, access constraints, redaction behavior, and cost. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds disambiguation the schema does not: the id is a receipt id rather than a change id, and the same id is what verify_receipt expects. It also clarifies that locale translates only the notice while the record itself is language-neutral.

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 and resource — 'Get one SeekTrace evidence receipt' — and then defines what a receipt is (immutable record of how AiSeek assessed one claim) plus the fields it carries. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling verify_receipt, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit use rule ('Use it to read what a receipt says; to check the stored record is unchanged use verify_receipt'), names the sibling that covers the other case, and tells the agent where the id comes from (get_change_history receipts[].id, never a change id). When-to-use and the alternative are both stated.

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