pushover_get_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like error handling for invalid receipts, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The name implies a read operation, but no guarantees are made.

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?

Very concise single sentence, but this comes at the expense of missing important details about usage and behavior.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description should hint at the response format (e.g., acknowledgment status per user). No differentiation from sibling tools is provided, and the tool's role in the notification lifecycle is unclear.

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 50% (only 'receipt' has a description). The description does not explain 'app_token' beyond the schema, and 'receipt' description merely restates the schema. No additional parameter semantics are added.

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 gets acknowledgment status for emergency Pushover notifications. The verb 'Get' and resource 'acknowledgment status' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pushover_cancel_emergency or pushover_validate_user. No prerequisites mentioned (e.g., must have a receipt token from an emergency notification).

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