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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds only the raw HTTP path; it says nothing about behavior on an unknown transaction id (empty vs error), auth requirements, or what a receiver record contains.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The endpoint sentence is arguably redundant with the annotations and schema, but it costs little and adds a retrieval anchor.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations needs little prose, so this is close to adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description never indicates what a receiver response looks like, leaving the return shape entirely undisclosed.

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 parameter itself documents its source ('from extensiv_list_receivers'). The description echoes 'by its transaction id' but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema's pattern. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('One receiver by its transaction id') and the underlying endpoint, so an agent immediately understands this is a single-record lookup keyed on transaction id. The singular framing implicitly separates it from extensiv_list_receivers, though the sibling is never named.

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?

No explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative (extensiv_list_receivers) for retrieving multiple receivers. The agent must infer from the singular phrasing that this is the single-item counterpart.

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