Get Settlement Receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read nature is clear. The description adds the term 'signed protocol-v2' which gives some specificity, but no additional behavioral context (e.g., permission requirements, response size, or error conditions) is provided beyond the annotations.

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 a single sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch'. No wasted words; every token contributes to meaning.

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 one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks contextual completeness by not referencing related tools or explaining when this receipt differs from others. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has one required parameter 'receipt_id' (string) with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on what the receipt ID is or its format. Although the name is self-explanatory, the description should at least restate the parameter's role to aid an AI agent.

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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'signed protocol-v2 settlement receipt', and the scope 'for one Harbor intent'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like paybond_get_reputation_receipt or paybond_verify_protocol_receipt_v1.

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 implicitly indicates use for fetching a settlement receipt but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like paybond_get_reputation_receipt or paybond_verify_protocol_receipt_v1. Context signals show many sibling tools, so this gap is notable.

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