x5_get_recent_receipts

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the result excludes receipt composition, supports limit/offset pagination, and comes from SQLite.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose, states the key limitation, and points to the alternative. 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 simple read-only list tool with two optional pagination parameters, the description is complete: it states what is returned, what is not returned, how pagination works, and which sibling covers the missing data. An agent can select and invoke 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. It names limit/offset, indicating pagination controls, but does not explain their meaning or edge behaviors beyond what the parameter names themselves imply. The schema provides defaults and bounds, partially filling the gap.

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 clearly states the tool returns recent receipts from SQLite without their line-item composition, with limit/offset pagination. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from x5_get_receipt, which provides the composition.

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 gives a direct routing rule: use this tool for recent receipt headers, and use x5_get_receipt if the composition/line items are needed. This makes the choice versus the most relevant sibling explicit.

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