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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no indication of pagination defaults, whether receipts include downloadable file links, or how results are ordered. With the annotation bar already met, this is a missed opportunity rather than a contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, purpose first, usage second, zero filler. Nothing is redundant with the title and nothing needs trimming.

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 simple read-only two-parameter list tool with rich annotations, the definition is adequate. However, there is no output schema, so the agent gets no notion of what a receipt record contains (IDs, dates, amounts, download URLs) or how results are paginated — a gap the description could have closed in one clause.

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%, and the 'company' parameter even points at list_companies, so the schema does the real work. The description contributes no detail about 'limit' behavior (default 20) or company selection, matching the 3 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get payment receipts from Deel') and scopes it to contractor payments, so the agent knows it is not invoices or contracts. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-sibling deel_get_invoices, leaving the receipts-vs-invoices boundary to inference.

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?

'Use when the user asks about specific Deel payments or needs payment proof' gives a concrete triggering condition rather than none. It offers no exclusions or alternative routing (e.g. when to prefer deel_get_invoices), so it stops short of the top score.

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