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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it reads receipts, a non-obvious behavior beyond the name. It doesn't mention auth, rate limits, or what the receipt contains, and with an output schema present, return values are partially covered.

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 sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core lookup behavior. It's appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though the compression contributes to the parameter gaps.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description doesn't need to explain return values. But given 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and one enum parameter, the description is missing sufficient context to call correctly, specifically which response_mode does what and what connection_context is for.

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 compensate, but it only maps mutation_ref to mutation receipt and upload_ref to upload receipt. The two other parameters, response_mode (enum compact/standard) and connection_context (mctx pattern), are completely undocumented in both description and schema descriptions. That leaves half the parameters without semantic guidance, and even the two it mentions add little beyond the names.

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 'Read' and two resource types: mutation receipt (by mutation_ref) and creative upload receipt (by upload_ref). An agent can tell this is a lookup tool for operation receipts. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like operations_get_approval or operations_get_context, which are adjacent lookups.

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 usage by naming the two ref types, letting an agent infer it should call this after a mutation or upload to get the receipt. But there's no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that you must complete a mutation first), and no alternatives or exclusions provided among the many operations_* siblings.

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