solver_receipt

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds a key behavioral guarantee — content-free, never returns task output — and clarifies the return payload categories. It doesn't cover failure or error behavior, but for a simple GET-style fetch this is reasonable.

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 one compact sentence with the key facts front-loaded: action, resource, content list, endpoint, and critical caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter fetch with no output schema or annotations, the definition covers purpose, return contents, and a critical limitation. It could be stronger by pointing to solver_result for task output, but it is not missing essential invocation information.

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 only says execution_id is a required string with no description. The description adds semantic role by showing it in the path /v1/receipts/{execution_id} and referring to 'an execution', but it does not explain where the execution_id comes from or expected format.

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 names a specific resource ('receipt for an execution') and a clear verb ('Fetch'), then enumerates what the receipt contains (route rationale, per-slice evals, cost). The 'never returns task output' line implicitly distinguishes it from sibling result/status tools.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use context: when you need execution metadata like route rationale, evals, or cost. It also supplies a when-not ('never returns task output'), but it does not explicitly name an alternative such as solver_result for task outputs.

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