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

Annotations already declare the operation safe, read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond that: missing evaluations make a receipt incomplete, and receipts themselves grant no authority. This is useful non-obvious behavior information not present in the annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose in one sentence, then adds one high-value semantic caveat in the second. There is no wasted wording, no repetition of the title, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to scan quickly.

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, limited-purpose list tool with only two simple parameters and an output schema, the description covers the critical context: the receipt lifecycle, promotion decision inclusion, the meaning of missing evaluations, and the non-authoritative nature of receipts. A bit more on parameter-level intent would improve it, but nothing is missing at a blocking level.

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?

The schema already covers tokenId as an NFH token id and provides valid constraints for limit. The description adds no direct parameter guidance, leaving any parameter ambiguity only mildly addressed. Since schema coverage is not complete for limit, a score of 3 is appropriate: adequate but not enriching.

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 the exact operation: list ACT → RECORD → EVALUATE receipts and promotion decisions. It clearly identifies the resource, the lifecycle stage, and the fact that this is a read/list operation, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_agent_requests or list_accepted_work.

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 intended scope is clear: this is the tool for NFH learning receipt and promotion-decision listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the lifecycle language and resource type make when to reach for this tool sufficiently obvious relative to the other list tools.

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