search_sales_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. It discloses useful semantic context (a sales receipt represents an instant payment needing no invoice), but says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior beyond schema defaults, permissions, or volume/rate characteristics for a search operation.

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, then the entity definition, then the filter capabilities. No filler and nothing that fails to earn its place.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and fully described parameters, the description is nearly sufficient; it explains the entity and the filter surface. It lacks only guidance on result volume/pagination and how it differs from sibling search tools, which are minor gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% with 8 well-documented optional parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes the filter categories but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail (e.g., how searchTerm combines with filters) beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('List sales receipts from KikoBooks') and adds a domain gloss ('record instant payments, no invoice needed') that helps distinguish it from invoice-oriented tools. However, it never names the closest siblings (search_payments, search_invoices, get_sales_receipt) to route the agent, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Lists the available filter axes (customer, status, payment method, date range), which implies how the tool is used, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no statement of what it does not cover. Usage must be inferred from the filter list.

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