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

The annotations already indicate this is a safe read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses per-recipient delivery states, delivery channels, timing, and failure reasons. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but those are not critical here given the annotations and output schema.

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 short and front-loaded, starting with the user-facing question and then summarizing the receipt fields. Every sentence adds useful information without wasted wording.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, has an output schema, and is annotated as read-only. The description provides enough context to call it correctly, though it could state precedence or behavior when neither optional parameter is supplied.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does so well by explaining that event_seq refers to an inbox item and task_key targets the newest addressed event, such as an assignment. It does not clarify whether both parameters can be supplied together or what happens if neither is provided.

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 a specific operation: retrieving per-recipient poke receipts with sent, delivered, read, and claimed statuses. It explains the event_seq and task_key inputs, but does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling get_message_receipts tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the question 'Did my poke arrive?' and by saying to pass an event_seq or task_key. However, it does not state when to choose this over alternatives such as get_message_receipts, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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