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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return shape (JSON:API data and relationships) and the underlying GET endpoint. It does not mention error behavior for missing ids, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The endpoint citation is slightly redundant but still useful for traceability and does not bloat the definition.

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 steps in to describe the return value as JSON:API data plus relationships, which is exactly the missing piece. For a one-param read tool it is nearly complete, lacking only failure-mode context.

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?

The single parameter has the same name as its schema field with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds that the id is 'numeric' and identifies a specific record, but omits any format or length detail beyond what the schema pattern already enforces.

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 (read) and resource (TOConline sales receipt), scoped to a single record by id, which cleanly separates it from the sibling toconline_list_sales_receipts. The underlying endpoint is even cited, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 phrase 'Read one ... by numeric record id' implies this is the single-record counterpart to the list tool, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. Usage is inferable from the contrast with list_sales_receipts rather than stated.

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