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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful context beyond that by saying it promotes a temporary receipt into receipt storage and 'Applies immediately,' clarifying that the operation is an immediate state change.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and structured in three clear sentences. The middle sentence listing input fields is somewhat redundant with the schema, but overall it remains efficient.

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?

Given the available annotations and output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the mutation, the temporary receipt workflow, and the ledger pinning rule. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists.

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?

The description mentions all three top-level parameters and summarizes the nested input fields, but much of this repeats what the schema already exposes. It reinforces the receiptObjectKey and ledger/pinned semantics, though it adds limited detail beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 names a specific action and resource: promote a caller-owned temporary receipt into receipt storage and append the confirmed transaction. It also ties the operation to receiptObjectKey, which clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings such as addLedgerEntries or parseReceipt.

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 receipt-specific workflow is implied by 'temporary receipt' and 'confirmed transaction,' and the ledger/pinned credential requirement is stated. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of addLedgerEntries or other receipt/ledger entry tools, so routing guidance is only implied.

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