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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return payload fields and the underlying SOAP GetReceipt operation, but says nothing about behavior when the number does not exist (empty result vs. error).

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?

Front-loaded and very short: the entity, its identifier, and the returned fields come first, with the SOAP note appended. The trailing 'SOAP GetReceipt.' fragment is terse jargon but earns its place as backend provenance for agents debugging legacy behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned record's contents, which is exactly what an agent needs to decide if this call supplies the data. The only gap is not-found/error behavior for an invalid receipt number, a minor omission for a single-parameter getter.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The purchase (receipt) number'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description restates the same concept without adding format, range, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource ('One purchase ... by its receipt number') and enumerates what the returned record contains (supplier, dates, lines, net, VAT, amount paid). The singular, by-number framing cleanly separates it from the sibling list tools such as kashflow_list_supplier_receipts and kashflow_list_recent_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?

The by-number phrasing implies you call this when you already have a receipt number, but the description never states when to prefer it over list_supplier_receipts or list_recent_receipts, nor any prerequisites or failure conditions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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