firestarter_receipt

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the receipt exists only after firestarter_approve has completed, and if the order hasn't been paid there is no receipt. It also details what the response contains (itemized breakdown, payment method/date), which is essential since no output schema is present.

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 compact and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then lists return contents, then gives usage guidance with alternatives. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or 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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns, when to use it, and when not to use it with pointers to relevant siblings. No critical information is missing.

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%: the single parameter execution_id has a clear description including the format (exec_...). The main description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the payment receipt for an order the buyer has already paid for'. It clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings by specifying the return contents (itemized breakdown, payment method, date) and by referencing sibling tools for alternate use cases.

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 states when to use the tool ('Use whenever the buyer asks for a receipt, invoice, proof of payment, or expense documentation') and provides exclusions with named alternatives ('check firestarter_status instead', 'use firestarter_track_order', 'use firestarter_return'). This is model usage guidance.

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