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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on behavior when the id is unknown, no auth requirements, no scoping constraints — so it contributes no value over structured fields.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted wording. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, the tool is a simple single-parameter lookup, and annotations carry the behavioral contract. The only meaningful gap is the absence of guidance on obtaining receipt_id or handling a miss, which is minor for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, but the sole parameter is a self-descriptive string named receipt_id, and the description reinforces it with "by id." It adds no format, sourcing, or validity detail, so it does only minimal compensating work for the undocumented schema.

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?

"Fetch a single delivery receipt by id" gives a specific verb (fetch) and resource (delivery receipt) scoped to a single item, which implicitly separates it from the plural sibling verify_receipts. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands just below the top tier.

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 statement of when to use this versus verify_receipts or any other sibling, and no preconditions such as where a receipt_id comes from. The only guidance is implied by the word "single," which the agent must infer.

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