List Receipt Sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those: the output shape (one row per fielded field with named columns) and an important safety instruction that values are data, not booking approvals. This meaningfully enriches the annotation-only picture.

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 with the core usage condition, then constraints, return shape, and safety guidance. A few sentences could be merged, but every clause carries useful information and there is no 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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly documents the return row fields (field, state, instrument, source_url, verified_on). Combined with the exact-one constraint and safety warning, it gives an agent essentially everything needed to call the tool correctly, though error behavior and empty-result semantics are not addressed.

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, but the description adds a critical constraint not present in the schema: exactly one of domain, phone, license, or address must be supplied, with market optional. This is genuine semantic value beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 action and resource: it lists dated receipt sources for an already-known identifier, explicitly contrasting itself with get_receipt by returning source rows rather than the full envelope. This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings and tells an agent what it accomplishes.

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?

It gives an explicit call condition ('when you already have an identifier and need the dated sources, not the full envelope'), names the comparable tool (get_receipt), and states the exact identifier cardinality ('exactly one of domain, phone, license, or address; optional market'). This is strong when-to-use guidance with a clear alternative.

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