get_receipts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'Read-only' and warns that omitting both filters dumps the whole ledger. It does not mention pagination or authorization, but it provides solid safety and scope behavior for a read-only list tool.

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 no redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds scope, timing, safety, and default behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers invocation timing, scoping semantics, read-only safety, and default filter behavior. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists.

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. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by stating that the filters are optional, that they scope to a Need or project, and that omitting both changes the query to a full-ledger dump. This helps the agent predict result behavior.

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 provenance receipts.' It also names the scoping dimensions (Need/project) and the audit purpose, which clearly distinguishes this from sibling project/need/payment tools. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use after record_payment or complete_need to audit payment and completion events.' It also explains the behavior when filters are omitted. It does not enumerate negative cases or alternatives, but the workflow context is clear and actionable.

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