get_agent_marketplace_invocation_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not explain what a 'bounded audit receipt' contains, whether it is immutable, when it becomes available, or any constraints on retrieval. This is minimal transparency for an operation that likely has domain-specific semantics.

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 description is a single short sentence with no filler or repetitive content, and the key action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing context that other dimensions account for.

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 description is not complete enough given the lack of annotations and the presence of many similar marketplace tools. It does not clarify what makes the receipt 'bounded,' how it differs from invocation status, or when an agent should call it. The output schema exists, but the surrounding context for correct invocation is still insufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the invocation_id parameter beyond referencing 'a marketplace invocation.' The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about where the ID comes from, its format, or how it relates to the receipt. With zero parameter documentation in the schema, the description should compensate and does not.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the bounded audit receipt for a marketplace invocation.' It clearly identifies the action and the object, and the word 'receipt' differentiates it from related status tools like get_agent_marketplace_invocation_status. The term 'bounded audit receipt' is somewhat jargon-heavy, but the core purpose is understandable.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_agent_marketplace_invocation_status or get_agent_marketplace_invocation_receipt. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions. With a large sibling list of marketplace-related tools, this leaves the agent to infer usage context on its own.

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