Get fiscal receipts

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals important response behaviors: receipt_type values, items as a map keyed by item ID, decimal strings for amounts, and conditional PII inclusion via client_fields. This adds substantial context beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states purpose and constraint; the second details return structure and PII handling. Every clause adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully specifies the response shape, type details, and PII behavior. It also covers parameter constraints, making it a complete reference for invoking the tool correctly. Annotations mitigate the need for further safety/transaction details.

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%, but the description adds the critical constraint 'pass exactly one of the two' and clarifies that client_fields controls PII inclusion, which is not fully captured in the schema alone. This goes beyond simply restating parameter descriptions.

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 it retrieves fiscal receipts by receipt id OR order id, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_order and query_order_events. The specific endpoint and return type further clarify its scope.

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?

It explicitly instructs to pass exactly one of the two IDs, which is a strong usage rule. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context makes it clear this is for fiscal receipt retrieval, not general order data.

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