Read the Decision Receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral trait: receipts only persist across restarts when the optional local hackathon store is configured. This is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentences with no extraneous content. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds a critical condition. Every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. However, the description lacks context on what a 'Decision Receipt' entails or how to obtain the ID/hash. The persistence caveat is helpful, but the tool concept remains somewhat vague.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'idOrHash' parameter. The description explains it can be either a receipt ID or a plan hash, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and length constraints. However, it does not specify format or example.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'complete validated Decision Receipt' with two identifier types (receipt ID or plan hash). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools which cover strategy, portfolio, opportunities, etc.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The usage is implied (when needing a receipt), but no context about selection criteria or exclusions is given.

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