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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with these (read operation). It adds significant behavioral context: explains the return contents (summary, JWS, verify URL), verification methods (offline/online), the distinction between outcome and verification.result, and the security caveat about not treating outcome=completed as success without a policy verdict. This goes beyond annotations to disclose how the tool behaves and what the results mean.

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 information-dense but not overly long. It front-loads the primary purpose and source of the required parameter, then covers verification, outcome interpretation, and the profile variant. While comprehensive, it is somewhat dense and could be slightly more scannable, but every sentence provides necessary context. Slight reduction could be made, but it remains focused.

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 tool with rich annotations and fully described parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: what is returned, how to verify, the meaning of key fields, and the security caveat. It even references protocol sections for deeper context. Given no output schema, the description provides sufficient guidance on the return structure and interpretation. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the completion_id source (from tascan_get_task -> completions[].id) and elaborating on the profile enum's full vs. public distinction, clarifying the public profile's privacy implications. This enriches beyond the schema's own descriptions, though the schema already carries most semantics.

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 clearly states the tool fetches a signed Action Receipt for a completed task by completion_id, with a specific identifier source (tascan_get_task -> completions[].id). It distinguishes its purpose from siblings by focusing on receipt retrieval for completed tasks, not creation, listing, or other operations.

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 description explains when to use it (for a completed task's receipt) and how to obtain the completion_id, but does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools for similar purposes (e.g., get_task). It provides context on the profile parameter and the protocol sections referenced, but no direct 'when not to use' guidance.

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