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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the returned object is the signed receipt itself and enumerates its verifiable contents: issuer key id, content hash, signature, timestamps, stages, assertions, and limitations. This provides useful behavioral context beyond the name, though it does not mention errors, auth, or side effects.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the action and resource immediately; the second provides valuable detail about the returned object and its verification use. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the input, clarifies that the full signed receipt is returned, and lists the key fields an agent can expect. The main gap is the lack of guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling lookup tools, which is relevant given their overlapping names.

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% for the only parameter, receipt_id. The description does not explain how to obtain this ID, its format, or its relationship to the sibling lookup tools. The parameter name is self-explanatory at a basic level, but the description adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema's 'Receipt Id' title.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve one complete signed Atinamos Assurance Evidence Receipt.' It is obvious what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the semantically similar sibling 'lookup_assurance_evidence', so it falls short of a perfect 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?

The description implies the tool should be used when a signed receipt must be retrieved for independent verification, mentioning buyers can inspect and verify. But it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to sibling tools like lookup_assurance_evidence or lookup_evidence.

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