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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose value-added behavior: the call is public (no auth), the result is a re-checkable onchain proof, and it fails with not_settled on open deals. It does not cover other error paths, whether receipts exist for every settled deal, or latency/size characteristics beyond the general 'this is a read' implication.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the content payload, then the failure mode. Every clause (public, anyone can re-check onchain, not_settled) carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the work the missing output schema would have done by enumerating receipt fields, and it covers access level and the main failure case. Minor gaps (other error conditions, deal ID provenance) keep it from a 5.

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% for the single dealId parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, sourcing, or example detail for dealId beyond the schema's 'Deal number,' nor does it say where deal IDs come from (bull_get_deal, bull_list_rfqs, etc.).

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 (get a signed receipt for a settled deal) and even enumerates the receipt's contents (buyer, seller, token, amounts, fee), which makes the output shape distinct from bull_get_deal. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling as the alternative for unsettled deals, so differentiation is achieved implicitly rather than stated.

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?

Provides a clear precondition and exclusion: 'Fails with not_settled for deals that are still open,' which tells an agent when not to call it and implies looking elsewhere for open deals. It does not name that alternative tool or describe other failure conditions, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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