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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful traits beyond them: results are scoped to the authenticated agent and returned most-recent-first. It says nothing about pagination, default limits, or result size.

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 front-loaded sentence that carries scope and ordering with no filler. Nothing is redundant or 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 simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (the caller's own receipts, newest first) and the annotations carry safety. However, the undocumented 'limit' parameter and the absence of any pagination or default-count guidance leave a real gap.

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?

There is one parameter ('limit') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, so it does not compensate for the gap. An agent cannot learn from the definition whether 'limit' caps the result count or what the default is.

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 ('Lista') and resource ('receipts') plus a scope ('del agent autenticado') and ordering ('más recientes primero'). The plural/list framing naturally separates it from the singular sibling temple_get_receipt, but the description never explicitly names or contrasts that sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over temple_get_receipt, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word 'Lista'.

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