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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: the mandatory prior login, the 3-month range rejection with the exact server error message, and the nuanced pagination semantics involving totalCount, pageInfoVO.totalCount, collectionMeta.complete, and collectionMeta.collectedCount. This gives the agent actionable knowledge about how the API behaves.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: prerequisite, core purpose, required parameters, date-limit rule with error message, and pagination/count interpretation. It is front-loaded with the most critical prerequisite and contains no filler.

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 paginated read-only search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, this description covers the non-obvious operational details an agent cannot infer: the 3-month cap, the exact rejection message, the distinction between totalCount and row count, and how collectionMeta indicates whether more pages exist. page_num, page_size, fetch_all_pages, and max_pages are already documented in the schema, so they do not need repeating.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it emphasizes that from_date/to_date are required, specifies the accepted date formats, and ties account_link_id to the session login. It also explains the meaning of count-related response fields, even though those are output semantics rather than parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Search cash receipt purchase history.' This is specific and unambiguous, and the title reinforces it. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling cash-receipt tools (sales history, daily issue), relying on the resource name and tool name instead.

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 gives strong usage context: it requires a prior hometax session login with the same account_link_id, requires both dates, and instructs the agent to split periods longer than 3 months. It does not explicitly compare against alternative cash-receipt tools, but the prerequisites and operational constraints are clear.

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