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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: 'You never see the image, only what was read from it,' clarifying the tool returns extracted data, not the raw photo. It also discloses output conventions such as integer cents and per-base-unit unit prices.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main idea and then lists the returned components efficiently. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary phrasing; all details are relevant to a tool with no output schema.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return shape, and it does so comprehensively: merchant, date, totals, payment method, tags, summary, and line items with quantity, unit, unit price, and line total. Required parameter provenance is already covered by the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 receiptId and householdId are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond contextualizing the output, which is acceptable but not extra value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource framing: 'Everything read from one receipt photo' and enumerates exact returned fields (merchant, date, totals, payment method, tags, summary, line items). The emphasis on 'everything' and individual line items clearly distinguishes it from summary/search receipt siblings.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving full parsed details for a single receipt, especially compared with summarize_receipt_items or search_receipt_items, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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