List receipts

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior; the description adds behavioral detail by promising a flag on the matching receipt and a report of skipped files with reasons, plus the 'as it stands now' qualification that matching uses the document's current state. No contradiction.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, but it is overloaded with three clauses and the phrase 'beside a document' is awkward. The most important action and filtering behavior are front-loaded, but readability could be improved.

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 covers the core behavior (list, flag match, report skips) and the output schema can define return shape, but it omits a definition of receipt/store, the expected document parameter format, and any guidance about why files might be skipped. Adequate for basic invocation, not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It relates the single document parameter to the receipt matching and current state, but it never specifies whether document is a path, ID, or content string, leaving a real gap for invocation.

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 concrete action—listing receipts—and adds the key discriminator that exactly one receipt is flagged by matching its digest to the current document, and skipped files are reported by name and reason. It is clear enough to separate from export_receipt or verify, though 'beside a document' is slightly ambiguous.

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 tool's use case is implied by 'List every receipt...' and the mention of skipped files, but the description never explicitly states when to choose this over verify, digest, or export_receipt, nor does it give prerequisites or exclusions.

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