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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are newest first, the endpoint is GET /receipts, and responses are wrapped as { data, pagination } when more pages exist. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but those are not essential here.

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 short sentences with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then adds endpoint and response-shape details only where they are useful.

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 read-only list tool with six optional, fully documented parameters, the description supplies the important context missing from structured fields: ordering and the shape of paginated responses. Output schema is absent, and the wrapper note helps compensate for that. Auth and rate-limit details are omitted but are not critical for correct invocation.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'List receipts'. It also adds ordering ('newest first') and the underlying endpoint, making the operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from related siblings like quaderno_get_receipt or other list tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 describes what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as quaderno_get_receipt for a single receipt. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing cues for the many sibling list_* tools.

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