heygen_receipt

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnly annotation: it confirms no generation occurs and notes that an UNKNOWN result requires dashboard reconciliation. It does not explain what UNKNOWN refers to or what the receipt includes, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. The UNKNOWN reconciliation note is compact even if slightly cryptic.

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?

Output schema and read-only annotations mean return values and safety need not be re-explained, but the missing definition of 'request_key' and the cryptic UNKNOWN note leave gaps for a tool whose only parameter is undocumented. The description is minimal but not quite complete for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage for the sole parameter is 0%, and the description never explains what 'request_key' represents, where to obtain it, or how it relates to the saved request. The phrase 'saved request' is suggestive but does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 resource ('saved request and job ID') and clarifies it does not regenerate content. It is clear enough to distinguish from heygen_submit, but it does not explicitly differentiate from heygen_status or heygen_download.

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?

Usage is implied by 'without generating again' and the UNKNOWN reconciliation note, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus heygen_status, heygen_submit, or heygen_download. The agent must infer the context from the sibling names.

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