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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds a valuable behavioral caveat beyond those annotations: 'Not found is not proof of no effect,' which warns the agent about interpreting absent results in an idempotency/retry context. It does not describe return timing or consistency behavior, but the key absence semantics are disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted language. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the important caveat about missing results.

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 simple three-parameter read operation with a full output schema and rich annotations. The description supplies the key non-obvious caveat about absent results, and the output schema can explain return values. It could be stronger with explicit usage routing, but it is complete enough for an agent to call 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 100%, so the input schema already documents agent_id, operation, and request_key in detail. The description adds only broad context about 'original intake/refresh receipt' and does not elaborate on parameter formats, enum meanings, or retry semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it reads an original intake/refresh receipt. This is clearer than a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings like source_read or source_refresh. The term 'receipt' is slightly opaque, though the surrounding wording suggests an idempotency/operation-record lookup.

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 phrase 'without repeating work' implies the tool is used to inspect a prior operation rather than retry it, and the caveat clarifies interpretation of a missing result. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over source_read, source_refresh, or other source tools, nor any named alternatives.

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