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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that matched and unmatched receipts are included, with no detail on ordering, pagination, scope limits, or what is returned.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is too fragmented and under-specified for its role. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity rather than efficient communication.

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 list-style tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is still too sparse. It does not clarify whether this returns full receipt records, summaries, or how it relates to purch_get_receipt.

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 unmatched parameter is already documented as 'Only unmatched ones.' The description does not add any semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (receipts) and a scope (matched or not), but it never states the action verb, such as listing or searching. It also does not distinguish this tool from siblings like purch_get_receipt or purch_unbilled_receipts.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus purch_get_receipt, purch_match_receipt, or purch_unbilled_receipts. The only implied usage is through the optional unmatched filter, leaving the agent to infer that this is the general receipts list.

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