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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them: the receipt should be kept private (a privacy/auth constraint) and results may not be immediately available, requiring retry polling. That is real behavioral context not encoded in 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the retrieval scope followed by the alternative-tool routing and the polling caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the privacy restatement of receipt_id mildly duplicates the schema description.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the possible return contents (scope, price, payment, decision, response). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and the schema covering the input, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the absence of explicit exclusion criteria keeps it below a 5.

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 100% and the single receipt_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its pattern and origin. The description only repeats 'using your receipt_id' without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb (retrieve) and enumerates the resource types returned: proposed scope, price offer, payment details, operator decision, or research response. This is far more informative than the tautological title, though it does not explicitly name check_coverage or submit_research_interest as contrasting siblings.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to respond_to_research_offer for confirming/correcting scope or accepting/declining a quote, which is genuine alternative-tool guidance. The polling hint ('if no response is available, try again later') adds useful timing context, but there is no explicit statement of when NOT to call this tool.

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