get_operation

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

The annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the receipt containing known IDs under uncertain delivery, but it does not disclose lifecycle details, error behavior, or what happens when the receipt is unavailable.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause earns its place by adding either the core action or the key use case.

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-required-parameter read operation with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description gives sufficient context. It could be more explicit about how request_id relates to the mutation receipt, but the overall picture is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain request_id beyond what the schema title already implies. It never clarifies that request_id is the mutation receipt identifier or how it is obtained, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('mutation receipt'), and the qualifier 'including known IDs after partial or uncertain delivery' makes the tool's scope clear. It is also distinguishable from sibling tools like read_thread and get_capabilities without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 gives clear invocation context: it is meant for reading a mutation receipt after partial or uncertain delivery. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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