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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the record fields (payer, payee, amount, status), the durable/on-chain nature, and the $0.002/call cost. It doesn't cover error cases or authentication, but for a read-only retrieval the key behavioral traits are present.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a meaningful detail about the receipt contents and pricing. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the receipt contains, how it is identified, and its cost, covering the return value implicitly. No significant gaps remain.

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%: verification_id is already described as 'UUID returned by settlement_verify'. The description repeats 'by its verification_id' and adds the term 'durable record', but does not add new syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'stored settlement-verify receipt' keyed by verification_id. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling settlement_verify by positioning this as the retrieval of the durable record issued by that tool, making its unique role unambiguous.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: after calling settlement_verify, to fetch the stored receipt. It names the issuing tool and the lookup key, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the natural pairing with settlement_verify.

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