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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides a meaningful guarantee (no republish, no blind retry) and implies a read-only operation ('read back'), but it does not disclose required permissions, side effects, or error behavior. This is a partial disclosure, not a complete one.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the negative guarantee ('Never republishes or blindly retries') adds valuable information without unnecessary length.

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 three required parameters, a nested receipt object, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the meaning of most fields, return values, or failure modes, leaving an agent under-equipped to call it safely and correctly.

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 by explaining the parameters. It only references the 'post ID' (likely receipt.postId) but leaves 'id', 'expectedVersion', and 'idempotencyKey' unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate the required nested receipt object.

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 uses a specific verb ('read back') and resource ('uncertain delivery') and specifies the operator-supplied post ID as the key input. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from republishing and blind retrying, so an agent can differentiate it from sibling tools like prepare_notice or approve_notice.

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 clearly indicates the intended scenario (uncertain delivery) and states what the tool does NOT do ('Never republishes or blindly retries'), which serves as an exclusion. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit decision rules for when to choose this tool over a sibling.

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