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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral detail such as what data is returned, whether filtering is applied, or what 'receipt' means in this context. The broad phrase 'Operate on ... drafts, lines, versions, documents, exports, and policy receipts' is vague and could suggest more than a read-only get operation, though it does not directly contradict the annotations.

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, but brevity is not the issue; it is under-specified. One generic sentence that lists eight entity types does not provide a useful structure or front-loaded operational meaning. This is closer to an empty placeholder than a deliberately concise definition.

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 13 parameters, no required fields, nested objects, an output schema, and a broad set of sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not clarify the core operation, which parameters are central, what the output represents, or how this tool fits the estimator workflow. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool 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 only 15%, and the description contributes zero additional parameter meaning. With 13 parameters, many being opaque nested objects like 'line', 'lines', 'bridge', and 'approval', the description must compensate for the schema gap but does not.

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 says 'Operate on' with a long list of entities, but this is not a specific verb+resource statement. The tool name suggests a receipt getter, yet the description never explicitly says what it retrieves or produces. It also does not distinguish this tool from sibling estimator tools like estimator_estimate_export or estimator_catalog_search.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state the intended scenario, preconditions, or whether it is preferred over estimator_policy_check, estimator_estimate_export, or other estimator tools. An agent is given no decision-relevant information.

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