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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses concrete behavioral traits: no external research or outbound actions, no inference of absent amounts, returns a draft for human review, charges 0.25 USD, and requires explicit wallet authorization. These are exactly the kind of side-effect and auth details that annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and scope, then each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, important constraint: no inference, no external research, draft output, price, and authentication. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The operational context is well covered: what is extracted, what is not inferred, the no-outbound guarantee, the human-review nature, pricing, and wallet authorization. However, with no output schema and unexplained parameters, the description does not fully equip an agent to construct a correct, fully-specified call.

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 must compensate for the 5 parameters. It maps 'receipt text' to the input/source_text concept and generalizes payment authorization, but it never explains `brief`, `audience`, `result_expires`, `idempotency_key`, `result_signature`, or `payment_signature`. The agent is left without enough parameter guidance for a zero-coverage 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 and resource: 'Extract merchant, date, line items, tax, total, and currency from supplied receipt text.' It also clarifies the boundary with 'do not infer absent amounts,' which makes the scope precise and distinguishes it from more open-ended extraction-like 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 gives clear context: use this when receipt text is supplied and structured fields are needed. It also states 'Uses buyer-supplied information only; no external research or outbound actions,' which helps an agent decide it needs no additional research. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it misses the top-tier 'when not to use' guidance.

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