transaction_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description contributes the notion that receipts are durable and adds a caution against automatic replay, which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about what the receipt contains or whether results change over time.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the read purpose is front-loaded. However, the second clause is a safety maxim rather than call-shaping information, so the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being efficient density.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only status tool with annotations and no output schema, the definition is close to sufficient in shape. What is missing is the lifecycle context: how long receipts are retained, how they relate to transaction_release, and what the agent should do with an 'uncertain' result.

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 single request_id parameter has no description, so the schema supplies only type and length bounds. The description never explains what a request_id is, where to obtain one, or what happens when an unknown/expired id is passed, leaving the only parameter semantically empty.

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 verb 'read' is specific, but the resource 'durable request receipt' is unexplained jargon and the tool is not distinguished from nearby siblings like transaction_release, checkpoint_status, or recovery_status. An agent can infer it queries the state of a prior request, but not what a receipt actually reports.

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 clause 'never replay an uncertain relative edit automatically' implies a scenario (after an ambiguous edit outcome) but states no positive trigger such as 'call after a write whose response was lost.' No alternatives are named, so the agent must guess between this and transaction_release/checkpoint_status.

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