writ_explain_receipt

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; 'Fetch' implies a read, but that is never stated outright. It does disclose the return shape ('the receipt with a human-readable breakdown'), yet says nothing about permissions, what happens when the receipt_id is unknown or expired, or whether the explanation is generated dynamically. Adequate, but with real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by the triggering condition and the return value. No filler or repetition, and each sentence adds distinct information.

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 read tool with an output schema already documenting return values, the description covers purpose, trigger, and the nature of the response. The only real omission is where the receipt_id comes from and its expected format, which is a minor gap given the small surface area.

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 is 0% for the single required receipt_id, so the schema adds nothing and the description must compensate. It only implies provenance by linking the tool to writ_check output, without stating the ID format, source field, or validity scope.

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 pairs a specific verb with a specific resource ('Fetch a receipt and explain it in plain language'), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from writ_check and the receipt-listing sibling writ_receipts. It stops short of naming writ_receipts explicitly, so the boundary with that sibling is left to inference.

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 an explicit trigger: use it to understand why a writ_check returned ALLOW, DENY, STEP_UP, or REVOKED, which ties this tool to a concrete prior step in the agent's workflow. There are no when-not conditions or named alternatives (e.g. writ_receipts for raw listing), so the guidance is clear but not complete.

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