get_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It adds two genuinely useful traits: 'latest' (only the most recent receipt, not history) and 'No auth required'. However, it omits failure behavior (e.g., task with no receipt yet), whether receipts are immutable, and any rate or size limits.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; scope ('latest'), return completeness, and the auth note are all delivered efficiently. Slightly terse rather than wasteful, so just under a 5.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers what comes back ('all fields needed for independent verification') and the auth posture. It could add an edge case note for tasks lacking a receipt, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines task_id. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 the latest delivery receipt for a task'), which clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like get_task, get_task_payment, and get_chain_entry. It does not explicitly name a sibling it competes with, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'needed for independent verification' implies the use case but never states when to call this versus get_task, get_task_payment, or submit_deliverable. No when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites beyond the auth note, so usage is only implied.

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