fetch_receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the concept of 'validation,' which implies some checking behavior beyond simple retrieval, but it does not clarify what validation entails (e.g., schema checks, existence checks, error handling). Given the annotations, this is an acceptable baseline, though more detail would strengthen it.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is too terse to be informative; it lacks the necessary detail to make that sentence earn its place. It is not bloated, but under-specification is not conciseness. Therefore a 3 reflects adequate brevity but inadequate substance.

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?

With 2 parameters, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description must carry the load for usability. It fails to explain what a 'runbook receipt' is, what validation involves, what the return value looks like, or how 'root' fits in. The tool is incomplete for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter info. The description does not mention parameters at all. While 'runbook_id' is somewhat self-explanatory, 'root' is ambiguous and undefined. The description offers zero help in understanding how to populate or use these parameters, which is a critical failure for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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 specific action (load and validate) on a specific resource (runbook receipt), which is clear and distinct from the sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like a generic 'get_receipt' or 'validate_receipt' that might exist, though none are in the list. The verb+resource combination is sufficient for a 4.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when fetching a receipt is appropriate, or any exclusions. The description is purely functional and lacks any usage context, which is a significant gap for an agent deciding between this tool and the nine siblings.

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