get_decision_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It only states what is fetched, not side effects, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether it is read-only. As a fetch operation, it is presumably safe, but this is not explicitly stated.

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?

One concise sentence with no unnecessary words. All information is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could briefly explain the purpose of the sha256 digest or the JCS text, but the context of sibling tools makes the function clear.

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 100%—the parameter 'audit_id' is described as 'Runtime Gate audit_id whose signed DecisionReceipt should be fetched'. The tool description adds no new semantics beyond restating the resource. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Fetch') and specific resource ('exact signed DecisionReceipt JCS text and its sha256 digest'). Differentiates from sibling tools like get_execution_receipt and get_audit_trail by specifying 'DecisionReceipt'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_execution_receipt, verify_audit_chain). Does not mention prerequisites or context such as after an approval action.

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