firestarter_receipt

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value beyond them by disclosing the precondition (payment must be complete after firestarter_approve) and the common failure mode (no receipt before payment). It doesn't cover error behavior for invalid/unknown execution IDs or whether receipts are re-fetchable, but for a simple read-only tool the key behaviors 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?

Four clean, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The purpose and precondition come first, return format second, and alternative routing last. Every sentence earns its place with information the agent needs, and no sentence is wasted on the already-known.

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 simple (1 param, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, the meaning of the parameter, return format, negative case, and sibling alternatives. Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately covers the return values. Minor gaps remain for edge-case error responses or permission failures, but the description is largely complete for a basic read tool.

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%, so the schema documents execution_id with format 'exec_...'. The description adds extra meaning by tying the parameter lifecycle: the ID must reference an order that has the buyer already paid for it, which narrows the parameter's semantic meaning. With the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, the added context on preconditions for passing it.

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: 'Get the payment receipt for an order the buyer has already paid for.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by name (firestarter_status, firestarter_track_order, firestarter_return), making the tool's role unambiguous. The title 'Get Receipt' in annotations adds further clarity.

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 says when to use it — 'whenever the buyer asks for a receipt, invoice, proof of payment, or expense documentation' — and when not to: 'If the order hasn't been paid yet, there's no receipt: check firestarter_status instead.' It names concrete alternatives for delivery tracking and returns, leaving nothing to inference.

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