receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-lookup profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful detail that the lookup is free (no cost/rate concern), but says nothing about behavior when the payment attempt ID is unknown, whether settlement records can be pending, or what data is returned.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource; nothing is padded. The trailing 'Free.' is a fragment, but it carries non-obvious information about cost, so it 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?

For a single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, an agent still lacks any indication of what a 'payment settlement' result contains (status, amount, timestamps) or how a missing/invalid attempt ID is surfaced. Annotations cover the safety profile, so this is adequate but not complete.

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%: the schema only declares a UUID-format string named payment_attempt_id, with no prose. The description clarifies that this ID refers to a payment attempt and is the lookup key, which adds meaning beyond the field name. It does not explain where the agent should obtain such an ID, but for a single required parameter the gap is modest.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Look up payment settlement') plus the lookup key ('by payment attempt ID'), which is far more informative than the bare name 'receipt'. It does not distinguish itself from the listed siblings (recommend, inspect, health), but those appear to operate on entirely different resources, so the risk of confusion is low.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the object of the lookup; the agent must infer that this is the settlement-lookup tool and not, for example, a payment-status tool.

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