receipts

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

The description discloses that the tool is read-only, returns receipts oldest last, includes refusals, and returns portable JSON. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but the limit parameter is documented in the schema, so the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the most important fact (read-only), and every clause earns its place. The sibling routing is compact and clear. No wasted words.

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 read-only list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, ordering, inclusion of refusals, and how to route to siblings. It doesn't describe the exact JSON shape, but the description says 'portable JSON' and the schema covers parameters, so the missing return format is a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context by explaining the 'control' parameter's filtering behavior ('exactly as `ctrlrun receipts --control` filters') and the ordering ('oldest last'), which enriches the schema's bare descriptions. This exceeds the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('read'), a resource ('individual receipts'), and key characteristics ('portable JSON, oldest last, one for every attempt including refusals'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming stats and inspect_action as alternatives. This is a clear, specific purpose that an agent can act on.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('Use this to read what happened') and when to use alternatives ('use stats for totals, and inspect_action for one action end to end'). This is direct routing guidance that leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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