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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context by stating that these receipts prove acceptance only and not payment or transaction authority, which prevents the agent from over-interpreting the list.

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 two short sentences that front-load the core action and resource, then add a clarifying caveat. There is no filler, repetition of the title, or unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a simple read-only list with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, so the description covers the important domain semantics. The only meaningful gap is the missing explanation of the limit parameter, which has a modest impact given the schema already enforces its range.

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 description does not explain the optional `limit` parameter or its meaning, such as pagination or maximum number of returned receipts. The description relies entirely on the parameter name, so it does not compensate for the missing schema-level parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List dual-signed ACCEPT receipts.' It immediately clarifies that this lists acceptance receipts, not work or payment documents, so an agent can tell it apart from broader list-like tools.

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 'They prove acceptance, not payment, capability, transaction authority, or selection' gives implied guidance about when to trust the output, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_returned_work or say when this tool should be preferred. Usage is largely inferred from the purpose rather than spelled out.

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