Advanced: session receipt chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Read' is consistent. The description adds useful context that this is an advanced/internal low-level view and that it returns the full chain, but it does not disclose return structure, ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior.

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 short sentences with no filler: the first defines the tool's scope, the second gives routing guidance. The '[advanced/internal]' tag is front-loaded and informative.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, this provides the core call intent and a usage preference. However, with no output schema, terms like 'raw session' and 'chain' are left undefined, and the description does not address possible error conditions or how the receipts are ordered.

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 0%, so the description carries the full parameter-documentation burden. It adds that session_id refers to a raw session and that the tool returns the full receipt list for that session, which is meaningful but still leaves the format or accepted values of a raw session unspecified.

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 clear verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('full receipt list for a raw session'), which distinguishes it from the singular runtime_session_receipt sibling and other runtime session tools. It could be stronger by naming the alternative product output tool, but it is not tautological or misleading.

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 phrase 'Prefer product output unless the user asked for the chain' gives an explicit when-to-use condition and points away from this tool for normal cases. It is actionable, though it does not name the preferred alternative explicitly.

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