brc_list_cash_receipts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'lists' without explaining pagination behavior, default page size, ordering, or that the companyName parameter serves as a context filter. Important traits like rate limits, data freshness, or return structure are omitted.

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 short sentence, making it concise in length. However, it lacks any structured breakdown (e.g., bullet points or logical separation). While brevity is valued, the extreme minimalism here undercuts useful detail, earning an average score.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what cash receipts are, how pagination works, what the default order is, or what the response contains. This makes it nearly unusable for an agent without additional inference.

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 only 43% (descriptions for filter, orderBy, companyName). The tool description adds no additional meaning to any parameter. It does not explain the roles of top, page, skip, or pageSize in the context of listing cash receipts, which would be helpful given the lack of schema descriptions for those fields.

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 explicitly states the verb 'lists' and resource 'BRC cash receipts', clearly identifying the tool's basic purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like brc_list_cash_payments or brc_list_customers by naming the specific entity. However, it does not add any qualifiers about scope or unique features (e.g., 'all' or 'for a company'), missing a chance to be more specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like brc_get_cash_receipt (single receipt) or other list tools. There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations. The agent is left to infer context from the name alone.

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