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

The description discloses that raw scope/deliverables are never stored, only commitments and signatures, which adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also clarifies it's measurement, not endorsement. However, it doesn't describe response format, error behavior, or whether the signed statement is a JWT, certificate, or something else. With annotations already covering read-only, the description provides some but not rich additional behavior.

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 long and includes a large block about SaSame's mission, MCP Factory, and measurement principles that are not necessary for calling the tool. The first sentence is clear, but the subsequent corporate text dilutes the message. It is not front-loaded beyond the first sentence, and every sentence does not earn its 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?

The tool is a read operation with one parameter and no output schema. The description does not explain the return value structure (what a 'SaSame-signed current statement' contains), nor does it discuss error cases, rate limits, or authentication. Given there's no output schema and the parameter is undocumented, the description is incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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?

The schema has one parameter, work_order_id, with no description in the schema (coverage 0%). The tool description mentions 'agent transaction receipt/work order', which implies work_order_id is the identifier, but it does not define its format, required prefix, or what happens if the work order doesn't exist. The description does not compensate for the schema gap, so the parameter semantics are weak.

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 tool reads the privacy-minimized state of an agent transaction receipt/work order and returns a signed statement. This is specific and distinct from siblings like agent_invoice_issue (which creates) or receipt_state (which might be generic). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar read tools like factory_verify_receipt, so it's not a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the legacy name and that it's not a fiscal invoice, but that's clarification, not usage direction. The description does not state prerequisites, such as whether a work order must already exist or how to obtain a work_order_id, and it doesn't name any sibling tools to prefer in other scenarios.

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