get_receipt_evidence

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: read-only, writes/signs/executes nothing, tenant sourced from config not arguments, explicit return statuses OK/REFUSED/UNAVAILABLE, and failure-to-UNAVAILABLE semantics rather than fabricated data plus an API-version gating note.

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?

Dense but largely front-loaded and each clause carries information (env requirements, statuses, version gating, the compliance caveat). Some run-on bundling of failure modes could be tightened, but waste is minimal.

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 partly covered, and the description handles env/behavior/statuses thoroughly. The significant remaining gap is that an agent learns nothing about what the required `request` payload must contain for this nested-object 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 0% for a single opaque `request` object with additionalProperties true. The description only clarifies one negative constraint (tenant is never passed as an argument) and that the receipt is the one supplied; it says nothing about the shape or required contents of `request`.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: an evidence view of one supplied receipt, including what could and could not be checked. This is distinguishable from a bare verify/read tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like verify_receipt or get_decision_evidence.

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?

Gives prerequisites (TRUST_GATE_API_URL/KEY/TENANT_ID) and behavioral constraints, and warns that a mapping or readout is not a compliance finding. However, it never states when to choose this over verify_receipt or get_decision_evidence, leaving usage selection implicit.

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