pushover_get_receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the subject is an acknowledgment state, but says nothing about receipt lifetime/expiry, polling behavior, or whether an unacknowledged receipt is an error — gaps that matter for an openWorld read tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and scope appear immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity is what leaves the other gaps unfilled.

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 two-parameter read tool with rich annotations, this is close, but there is no output schema, so the description should describe what the acknowledgment status response contains (acknowledged flag, by whom, expired state) and it doesn't.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'receipt' is documented in the schema, but 'app_token' has no description anywhere. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema (format, provenance, or what happens with an expired/invalid receipt token).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get acknowledgment status') scoped to emergency Pushover notifications. A reader can tell what it does, but it doesn't distinguish itself from the closest sibling pushover_cancel_emergency or note its relationship to pushover_send_notification.

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?

'for an emergency Pushover notification' implies usage after an emergency notification was sent, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite stating the receipt token must come from a prior emergency send, and no named alternative.

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