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 usefully discloses that receipts are hash-chained and that the tool can verify the chain, which is behavior beyond the schema. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, pagination/order behavior, or what happens when verification fails.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the parenthetical enumeration earns its place by clarifying receipt categories. It slightly conflates two behaviors, listing and chain verification, without clarifying whether verification is always performed, which keeps it from a 5.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description identifies what is listed and notes chain verification, which is adequate to start. It still omits return structure, limit behavior, default ordering, and failure semantics for chain verification, so an agent lacks some context needed to invoke it confidently.

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 only parameter, "limit", has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. It adds no semantics such as default value, maximum, or whether the limit applies before or after chain verification, though the single optional and intuitively named parameter keeps this from being a 1.

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 gives a specific read verb ("List") and resource ("hash-chained receipts"), then enumerates receipt categories such as draft creations, approvals, syndications, and analytics runs. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling action tools, but the resource and read operation are clear enough that an agent can distinguish it.

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 enumerated receipt types imply an audit/history use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The mention of verifying the chain hints at a purpose but does not route the agent between alternatives.

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