list_receipts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does deliver genuinely useful traits: entries are append-only and hash-chained, i.e. immutable and tamper-evident. It omits ordering, pagination behavior, default limit, what a receipt record contains, and whether all history is returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence fragment with no filler; the resource identity comes first and the enumeration follows. It is a fragment rather than a full clause, which slightly undercuts clarity but wastes nothing.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the ledger's nature but not result ordering, pagination, or receipt shape. Adequate to start, insufficient to call confidently without experimentation.

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 0% and the single 'limit' parameter is never mentioned in the description, leaving its default, maximum, and whether it truncates results undefined. With one undocumented parameter the description should have compensated, and it does not.

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 identifies the resource precisely as an 'append-only, hash-chained receipts ledger' and enumerates the event types recorded (grants, prepares, approvals, refusals, dry-runs, pause/resume), which is meaningful content beyond the tool name. It stops short of stating a verb or explicitly contrasting itself with the sibling action tools, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as get_tracker or search_jobs, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The event-type list implies an audit/verification use case, but the agent must infer it.

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