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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the payload is unsigned and filtered, so it must not be treated as signature-verified, and the original delivery should be retained. It stops short of saying what the filtering strips out.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the read nature and folding in the integrity caveat. It is tight but slightly clipped, and 'retain original delivery' is terse enough to require interpretation.

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. However, for a tool that returns deliberately filtered, unsigned data, the description omits what is filtered out and says nothing about how to supply receipt_id, leaving real gaps for a one-parameter lookup tool.

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% and the single parameter, receipt_id, gets no format, origin, or lookup guidance in the description. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 it reads an 'unsigned, filtered public view,' implying a read of a receipt, but never names the resource being read; the agent must rely on the tool name and title ('Filtered public security receipt') to know what it retrieves. It also gives no contrast with siblings such as security_preflight.

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 an implicit warning — keep the original delivery for signature verification — which hints this view is not authoritative. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and nothing tells the agent when to call this versus security_preflight or scan_source.

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