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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds useful scope detail that every mismatch is included and prices are excluded, but it does not explain pagination, limits, or output structure.

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 with no wasted language, and the key scope constraints are front-loaded. The 'No prices.' fragment is terse but 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?

The description conveys the basic return concept (match frequency with every miss, no prices), which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. It still leaves important parameter semantics and output detail gaps for an audit-oriented tool.

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 only 50%, and the description does not clarify the venue, family, days, or format parameters. The 'family' enum values (high, low, rain, all) are especially cryptic without description-level explanation.

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 identifies the resource as settle-value match results versus venue results, including misses, and 'No prices' scopes it away from price data. However, it lacks a clear action verb and the name 'receipts' is ambiguous, so the purpose is only implied rather than stated directly. Sibling differentiation is minimal beyond the price exclusion.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like history or markets, nor any prerequisites or exclusions beyond 'No prices'. The audit/reconciliation use case is only implied by the content.

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