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

With all annotations set to false and providing little safety signal, the description carries the behavioral burden and meets it well. It discloses that partial receipts are repeatable and retained with date and note, a full receipt closes the order, and invalid states are refused (already received or predated).

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 three sentences with no filler: purpose first, then behavior, then refusal conditions. Every clause adds operational information an agent needs.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the key state transitions, repeatability, retention behavior, and error conditions. There is no output schema, but the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what will happen when the tool is invoked.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: partial's repeat behavior, the closing effect of a full receipt, and the date-before-order-date refusal. It does not add much about id or note, but those are already well described in the 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 opens with a specific verb and object, 'Record that an order arrived,' which immediately identifies the operation. It then distinguishes the two receipt modes (partial vs. full) and their state effects, making the tool's purpose distinct from the other purchase_order_* 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 conditions: use partial when only some of the order arrived and the order should stay open, and full receipt when it should close. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'use X instead,' but no sibling performs receipt recording, so the context is still clear.

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