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

The description's 'Get' and the underlying GET endpoint are consistent with readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. It adds the raw API path, which is modest context, but says nothing about error behavior, not-found handling, or what the payload contains beyond the inferred record.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The API path sentence is of marginal value to an agent but does no harm and is compact.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema, the description gives no indication of what a receivable record contains or how a missing code is handled, leaving 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'codigo' parameter is already documented in-schema, including the note that it comes from the matching list tool. The description's 'by code' restates the schema rather than adding format or validation detail, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one receivable by code'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list tool egestor_list_receivables. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling, but the singular-noun phrasing makes the distinction implicit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: retrieving a single record by code, with the code conceptually coming from a list call. There is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'do not use for…' guidance, and no mention of what to do if the code is unknown.

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