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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that this is a read and that an operations:read scope in the MCP Authorization header is required, which is valuable. It says nothing about what happens if the caller lacks the scope, whether receipts may be empty, or the shape/volume of returned proofs.

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 short sentences, zero filler; the resource is stated first and the auth prerequisite second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and auth but omits what a 'proof' contains and what an empty result means. Adequate to call it, thin on what to expect back.

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 0% for the single parameter operationId, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It only hints that the operation is 'assigned', leaving the UUID format and required-ness to the schema alone.

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 signed delivery receipt proofs' scoped to an assigned operation. This distinguishes it from write-side siblings like submit_delivery_receipt and create_delivery_receipt_challenge, though it does not explicitly separate itself from read_assigned_operation_evidence.

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 phrase 'for an assigned operation' implies the operation must already be assigned, giving partial context. However, it never states when to prefer this over read_assigned_operation_evidence or list_assigned_operations, and no exclusions are given.

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