validation_receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds valuable context: format parameter's markdown is 'derived on read, never stored or hashed', and includeRawResponses is 'read-time only; pulled live per job under same owner check; never persisted or hashed'. No contradiction.

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?

Single sentence with clear structure and parenthetical return statuses. No unnecessary words; every part adds value.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers return values and core behavior. It lacks explicit error handling or pagination info, but those are likely not needed given the tool's simplicity. Slight gap: does not mention rate limits or authentication.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters documented). Description adds extra meaning beyond schema: for format, clarifies that markdown is human-readable rendering derived on read; for includeRawResponses, explains it's live and never persisted; for validationId, specifies it's run-level from kickoff response, not a job/correlation id.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'immutable receipt of a terminal cross-LLM validation run' with parameter validationId. It lists possible return statuses (minted, pending, expired_unminted, not_found), distinguishing it from sibling tools like job_result or validate_with_models.

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?

Description indicates when to use (after a validation run), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. However, the mention of 'own-or-not-found' provides implicit guidance on scoping. Slight gap in differentiating from closely related sibling tools.

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