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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result includes signed, countersigned verification records (implying cryptographic attestation and a read-only fetch), but says nothing about auth requirements, not-found behavior, or whether the records are independently verifiable or merely returned.

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, zero filler, and the core capability is front-loaded ahead of the usage scenario. The illustrative claim example earns its place by anchoring the tool's purpose.

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 one-parameter fetch with no output schema, the description conveys the primary return content (receipt plus verification records). It could go further on what a verification record contains or what an unsigned/invalid receipt looks like, but nothing essential is missing.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as a 'sha256:... receipt id'. The description adds no format, source, or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for a fully-covered single-parameter schema applies.

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 ('Fetch a single execution receipt by id') and adds that verification records come with it. The 'single ... by id' framing implicitly separates it from the sibling search/bulk tools, but no sibling is named, so it falls short of the explicit differentiation a 5 requires.

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 a concrete triggering scenario — checking a claim like 'agent X says it did job Y' against the signed record — which tells an agent exactly when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. when to use inam_search_agents instead) or any when-not condition.

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