brc_get_cash_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation without mentioning side effects, safety (read-only), authentication, or any constraints. For a getter, the lack of explicit read-only indication is a gap.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. While it is efficient, it could benefit from additional context about return behavior or prerequisites without becoming verbose.

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 purpose but lacks information about the return value (e.g., it returns a single cash receipt object) and does not explain the role of the 'companyName' parameter. Given no output schema, the description leaves some ambiguity about expected outcomes.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters ('id' and 'companyName') are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Gets one BRC cash receipt by id' clearly states the action (get), the resource (BRC cash receipt), and the method (by id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like brc_list_cash_receipts which retrieve multiple receipts, and other getters which target different entities.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single cash receipt by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like brc_list_cash_receipts or other getters. No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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