etsy_receipt_transactions_by_receipt

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, indicating a read operation. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, result limits, or sorting. Since annotations already provide read-only information, the description is minimally sufficient but not additive.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be more structured with additional context.

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 (2 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details about return format, result set size, or error conditions. It is complete enough for a simple list operation but leaves gaps for production use.

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 description does not explain the meaning or format of the required parameters (shop_id and receipt_id). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so, leaving users to infer from the tool name.

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 clearly states it lists all transactions for a specific receipt, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from similar sibling tools like etsy_receipt_transactions_list or etsy_receipt_transaction_get, which could cause ambiguity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for using it over other receipt-related tools.

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