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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value with the result ordering ('newest first') and a result cap ('up to 500'), but leaves the default page size (50 in schema) and pagination behavior unexplained.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb, resource and ordering, then packs the filter mapping and cap into the tail. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical 'field (param)' notation is terse and 'up to 500' is slightly ambiguous between a max limit and a total result cap.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the tool is simple with zero required parameters. Still missing for a four-parameter list tool are the meaning of limit, whether omitted filters mean 'all', and any hint of paging beyond 500 results.

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 description carries the full burden, and it maps three of four parameters to real-world meaning: subject=barcode, market=country, since=date with an explicit YYYY-MM-DD format. Only 'limit' is left implicit, conveyed only obliquely by the 'up to 500' ceiling, and the empty-string defaults are not addressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List receipts') plus the ordering ('newest first') and the three filter axes. It is clearly distinguishable from write_receipt and verify_receipt by its enumeration framing, though it never names a sibling to contrast with get_statement.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the enumeration tool for browsing receipts by barcode, country or date. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_statement, no statement about what happens when all filters are omitted (presumably all receipts), and no guidance on paging past the cap.

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