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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the read-only profile, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds the underlying REST mapping (GET /receipts/{id}), which helps with error/404 reasoning, but says nothing about what happens on a missing or malformed id.

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, verb-and-resource first, endpoint detail second. No filler and nothing buried.

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 readOnlyHint and full schema coverage, this is close to sufficient. The only real gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not characterize the returned receipt object.

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?

Single required id parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The phrase 'by id' adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond that, which is the baseline case.

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 ('Fetch a single receipt by id'), which clearly separates it from quaderno_list_receipts by scope (single vs. list). It does not explicitly name the list sibling, but the singular framing is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative; the agent must infer that this applies when a receipt id is already known and that list_receipts is the lookup path otherwise. 'by id' implies a precondition but nothing more.

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