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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent. The description goes beyond that by specifying that only 'allow-listed public fields' are returned and that the receipt must be 'retained,' which clarifies access and availability behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence states the operation, scope, and lookup requirement with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 one-parameter idempotent read with annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient: it tells the agent what it will get (allow-listed public fields), the precondition (retained), and how to look it up (exact id). No output schema is required for this simple case.

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 has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining that receipt_id is used as an exact identifier rather than a fuzzy search key. This adds meaning above the bare string type and length constraints.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve'), identifies the resource ('public GAIP receipt' / 'allow-listed public fields'), and states the lookup mode ('by exact id'). This clearly distinguishes it from governance, capabilities, and shadow-status sibling 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?

'By exact id' and 'retained receipt' clearly indicate when to call this tool: when the agent has the exact identifier and only needs the exposed public fields. It does not name an alternative tool for the same operation, so it stops short of a 5.

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