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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful behavior: raw scope/deliverables are never stored and only SHA-256 commitments, labels, signatures and state transitions are retained, and the call returns a SaSame-signed statement. That is real disclosure beyond the annotations, though it is diluted by promotional GEC copy.

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 purpose is front-loaded correctly in sentence one, but the middle of the description is largely marketing boilerplate about SaSame, GEC, Outcome Demand discovery, Exchange, Observatory and Factory that does not help an agent select or invoke this tool. Those sentences do not earn their place.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does convey what comes back (a signed current statement) and the privacy posture. However, it omits the one thing an agent most needs for invocation — what work_order_id is and where to obtain it — leaving the definition only marginally complete.

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% and the single required parameter work_order_id is never mentioned in the description, so no format, source, or lookup guidance is supplied to compensate. The description does not add meaning beyond the bare schema field name.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read the privacy-minimized state of an agent transaction receipt/work order and receive a SaSame-signed current statement.' The closing note that the legacy name is retained and this is 'not a fiscal invoice' partially disambiguates it from agent_invoice_issue and agent_invoice_attest_settlement, but it never states what those siblings do differently, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 call this versus alternatives such as receipt_state, receipt_status_set, or agent_invoice_attest_settlement, nor any prerequisites (e.g., a valid work order must already exist). The GEC/SaSame narrative describes the platform, not the usage context for this call.

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