validation_receipt

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that by enumerating all possible return states: minted, pending, expired_unminted, verification_failed, and not_found. It also discloses that the receipt is canonically hashed and immutable, which is useful semantic context.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs the status vocabulary into a well-scoped parenthetical. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant padding.

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 read-only retrieval tool, the description covers the lookup key, the semantics of the receipt, and all possible return statuses despite the absence of an output schema. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description itself adds little parameter-level detail beyond framing validationId as the lookup key, which is expected given the high schema coverage baseline.

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 verb ('Retrieve'), a precise resource ('canonically hashed immutable receipt of a terminal cross-LLM validation run'), and the key parameter (validationId). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like job_status or job_result by focusing on the validation receipt lifecycle rather than job execution status.

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?

The description clearly situates the tool as the way to obtain receipts for terminal cross-LLM validation runs, and the parameter schema reinforces that it expects a run-level validationId from a validation kickoff response. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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