list-receipts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral detail: the Billforward endpoint lacks native date filtering, so results are fetched sorted by created and filtered client-side when date parameters are set. This goes beyond typical expectations. However, it does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or other safety aspects.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first immediately states the tool's purpose, and the second adds a crucial implementation note. Every sentence earns its place with zero fluff.

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?

Given the complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough context: purpose, a key behavioral quirk, and the receipt-to-payment relationship. It could mention that results include receipt IDs or amounts, but the schema already describes parameters sufficiently.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation without added value.

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 'List receipts across all accounts' (specific verb+resource) and explains the mapping to payments and audit data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list-payments or list-invoices, though 'across all accounts' implies a broad scope.

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 mentions that receipts map to successful payments and provide audit data, which hints at usage context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list-payments. No when-not or alternative names are provided.

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