Find Missing Receipts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description contributes one useful behavioral fact — results are scoped to the caller's own transactions — but says nothing about result volume, whether it spans card and out-of-pocket activity, or how incomplete data is handled.

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 tight sentence with the audience ("caller's transactions") front-loaded and the filtering condition following immediately. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the lone parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description covers what is found and for whom; only the meaning of the domain-specific "entertainment attendee lists" and edge-case behavior remain unexplained.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the YYYY-MM format and the current-month default. The description adds no extra semantics about the month filter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ("Find") and resource ("the caller's transactions") plus the exact filter condition (missing receipt images or entertainment attendee lists). This clearly separates it from list_card_transactions and validate_tax_compliance, though it never names a sibling explicitly as the scoring rubric's top tier asks.

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 explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The use case (preparing an expense report, satisfying receipt requirements) is only implied by the description's filter condition, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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