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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses null handling with reasons under missing, default and maximum periods, credential scoping, the Last Price credential requirement, and the sandbox 403 behavior until a workspace is claimed.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then layers prerequisites and constraints efficiently. Despite covering substantial behavior, each sentence contributes necessary context.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It covers the receipt's content, missing-value behavior, period bounds, authorization scoping, and workspace-claim prerequisite.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful period semantics beyond the schema, including the default last 30 days and the 366-day maximum.

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 names a specific verb and resource: read one agent's Value Receipt. It also explains the receipt's measured contents, cost, and return, making it distinguishable from generic receipt-listing tools.

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 usage context: pass agent_id and date bounds, with defaults and maximum period. It also states credential and workspace prerequisites, but does not explicitly route the agent to or away from sibling tools such as list_receipts.

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