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

The annotations only provide readOnlyHint: true, so the description carries the burden of behavioral context. It adds that the receipt is cryptographically signed, includes a KMS signature, and that errors occur while the order is in progress—useful details beyond the read-only hint.

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. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the availability constraint. Every word earns 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 description lists the receipt contents, the availability condition, and the error behavior. Although there is no output schema, the description gives sufficient detail for an agent to understand what it will receive and when to call it. Minor missing detail like the exact error format is not critical.

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% and both parameters (apiKey, orderId) are described adequately in the schema. The description does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: returning a cryptographically signed receipt for a completed order, specifying key contents (seller Nano address, payout block hash, KMS signature). It also differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_order by focusing on the receipt and its unique availability condition.

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 explicitly states the precondition: 'Available only after escrow is Released; returns an error while the order is still in progress.' This provides clear guidance on when to invoke the tool. It doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives, but the condition is sufficient for correct selection.

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