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

With no annotations carrying safety or behavioral signals, the description does the full job: it states the return payload, defines the proof.standing enum, warns that a verified receiptHash is not sufficient evidence of chain confirmation, and discloses owner-scoped access plus a credential-free verify URL. That is unusually rich behavioral context for a read tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the rest of the paragraph delivers high-value caveats. The text is slightly dense and mixes enum definitions, access control, and verification guidance in one run-on paragraph, so it is informative but not optimally structured.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description covers what is returned, how to interpret the proof.standing field, the critical verified-vs-chain-confirmed distinction, and the access model. For a two-parameter read tool with no annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by tying executionId to the output of ava_copilot_turn/ava_approve_execute, explaining that userId is only needed for headerless callers, and clarifying ownership semantics, which exceeds the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: retrieving the receipt for a prior ava_approve_execute by executionId. It also frames the tool's position in the workflow ('the loop's final step'), which distinguishes it from the execution and planning siblings.

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?

It clearly situates the tool after ava_approve_execute and gives the exact identifier to use, so when to call it is evident. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond the owner-scoping constraint, so it stops short of a full when-versus-other-tools guide.

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