get_ashby_receipt

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description adds genuinely useful interpretation rules: a stored receipt confirms success even with Chrome closed, and unrecorded means the outcome is unknown. It omits retention windows, latency, or auth requirements, but the result-semantics disclosure is the important part for a status-check 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 with no filler, and the primary instruction ('check first when asked whether it was submitted') is front-loaded. The phrasing 'Check the exact Ashby job first' is slightly compressed/ambiguous but still readable.

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?

The output schema presumably covers return shape, and the description handles result interpretation well. However, for a tool with one required, undocumented parameter, an agent cannot confidently supply 'site', which is a meaningful completeness gap for an otherwise simple tool.

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 single required parameter 'site' has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description never explains what a 'site' is — a domain, an Ashby job slug, or an internal key. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not; 'the exact Ashby job' only hints that the value must be precise.

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 states a concrete action (check the stored Ashby receipt) and the question it answers (was the job submitted?), which is more specific than the name alone. It does not name the sibling tools (e.g. watch_ashby_receipt) to sharpen the boundary, but the retrieval-vs-observation distinction is inferable.

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 clear triggering conditions: when asked whether a job was submitted, at handoff, or after a lost tab, and says to check this 'first'. The implied alternative (watching for a receipt) is never named, so the routing guidance stops short of explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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