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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only discloses that the call is free. It says nothing about whether the receipt must already exist, what happens on an unknown or not-yet-complete request id, whether results expire, or whether any authentication/ownership applies.

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 with the operation front-loaded and no padding. The brevity is close to under-specified, but nothing written is wasted.

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 fetch tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description should explain the async/retrieval relationship to fikra_process_receipt and what a receipt result contains. Neither is covered, leaving an agent to guess at the calling pattern.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add one useful clue by describing receipt_id as a 'request id', implying the identifier comes from a prior processing request rather than a plain document id, but it gives no format, source, or example for the value.

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 and resource ('Read a receipt') plus the lookup key ('by request id'), so the basic operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as fikra_process_receipt or fikra_extract_invoice, so an agent must infer that this is a retrieval/fetch step rather than a new extraction.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus fikra_process_receipt, nor any note about calling it after a processing request. The only guidance offered is the cost note 'Free.', which addresses pricing, not selection.

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