receipt_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that the call performs a hash-chain verification (a non-obvious side behavior), but says nothing about whether verification is automatic, what happens on a mismatch, auth requirements, or result limits.

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 efficient sentence with the core resource and record types front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is dense but not padded.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation mean the description should do much more. It omits pagination behavior, return shape, and the result of the hash-chain verification, all of which an agent needs to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The parenthetical listing evaluations/DENYs/probes/snapshots loosely hints at values for the 'type' parameter, but 'limit' is entirely unexplained and no filtering or paging semantics are given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List ledger receipts') and enumerates the record kinds returned (evaluations incl. DENYs, probes, snapshots), which pins down the domain clearly. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like target_list or fleet_snapshot, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the sibling listing tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The 'verify the hash chain' clause hints at an audit 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.