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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers meaningful traits: results are newest-first, capped at 100, and consist of signed receipts with statuses. It omits permission/auth requirements and what happens when a log is longer than 100 entries.

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?

Three tight sentences: scope first, then use cases, then return shape. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, cap, and content type of the return. The remaining gap is truncation/pagination behavior beyond the 100-receipt cap.

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% for the single 'agent' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description's 'under an agent name' only restates that, adding no new semantics such as format or matching rules.

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 and resource ('read the last receipts filed under an agent name') plus ordering ('newest first'), which is far more than the name alone conveys. It is distinguishable from the singular sibling get_receipt by explicitly scoping to a list of receipts per agent, though it never names the siblings.

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 usage contexts: audit yourself before reporting success, or review what another agent claimed it verified. That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions (e.g., when to prefer get_receipt instead).

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