get_execution_receipt

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

The description indicates a read operation ('Fetch') but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or permission requirements. With no annotations, behavioral transparency is moderate; it confirms the output includes text and a digest, but lacks depth.

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, focused sentence of 12 words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and delivers essential information without any redundant or extraneous content.

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 read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It states what is fetched and the digest aspect. However, it omits any mention of required preconditions or error states, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter ('receipt_id') with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('Fetch') and the specific resource ('signed ExecutionReceipt JCS text and its sha256 digest'), which is precise and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_decision_receipt' by specifying the exact receipt type and output format.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_decision_receipt' or 'get_approval_request'. There are no usage notes, prerequisites, or conditions specified, leaving the agent to infer context solely from the name.

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