Action receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds 'zero-auth' and 'no external side effects', which is genuine extra context, but says nothing about what the returned receipt interface contains.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with usage and followed by behavioral constraints. No padding, though the opening sentence is dense with undefined terms.

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?

With zero parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the tool is simple, but the description never explains the shape or meaning of the 'action-receipt interface' it returns. For a tool whose whole value is a returned record, that is a real gap an agent cannot close elsewhere.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming the call takes no arguments.

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 names a resource ('action-receipt interface') and states it returns JSON, but offers no concrete verb or operational definition of what a receipt is or what calling the tool does. The lifecycle vocabulary ('proposed action, admission, execution, review, compensation') is domain jargon that does not clearly differentiate this tool from the ~40 telos 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?

'Use when modeling proposed action, admission, execution, review, and compensation records' gives an implied usage context, but names no alternatives, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions among a very large sibling set. The guidance is abstract rather than routing.

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