nudgeonly_receipt_bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's behavioral traits: deterministic, no writes, no ownership decisions, no completion state. This clearly sets expectations about what the tool does and does not do, though it does not mention rate limits or auth needs.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and immediately followed by key constraints. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 16 optional parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description gives a high-level purpose but lacks detail on how parameters map to output or what the output structure looks like. It is adequate but leaves gaps for the agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description provides high-level context for the parameters (painpoint input, receipt/wake output) but does not add specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's purpose: transforming a verified NudgeOnly painpoint into a worker receipt request or WakePass escalation candidate. It also specifies what the tool does not do (no writes, no ownership decision, no completion state), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like nudgeonly_api or pushonly_wake_pusher.

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 implies usage by stating it's a deterministic bridge with no writes, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer context from the description's behavioral constraints.

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