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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: results are restricted to the caller's own customer key, Bearer auth is required, and requests without a key are refused.

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 two compact sentences and front-loads the ownership scope before the operational details. Every clause—range modes, date format, limit cap, and auth requirement—carries useful information.

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 six-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, both filter families, auth, and the limit cap. Return shape/ordering and default limit are not stated, but annotations and the tool name make the read operation sufficiently clear.

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% across six optional parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It documents from/to as YYYY-MM-DD with inclusive to, limit capped at 500, and groups from_seq/to_seq/after_seq as seq-range parameters; after_seq cursor semantics and defaults remain somewhat implicit.

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) and scopes it to rows whose caller is the customer key. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with get_statement/verify_receipt, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Explains the two filtering modes (seq range or date range), the limit ≤ 500, and the Bearer auth requirement. However, it does not say when to choose seq versus date filtering, nor name alternatives such as get_statement or verify_receipt, leaving tool selection partly inferred.

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