Get receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds value beyond those by revealing the response includes lines, payments, attachments, and notes, which is useful behavioral context about the returned payload.

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 filler. Every word contributes information: the action, the target resource, the scope, and the included subresources.

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, idempotent get tool with no output schema, describing the main resource and its included associated data is largely sufficient. It doesn't cover not-found behavior or error cases, but those are secondary for such a simple retrieval tool.

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 50%; receipt_id lacks any schema description. The prose 'by id' adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name, and administration_id is already fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't substantially compensate for the missing receipt_id documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('one receipt by id'), and explicitly enumerates the included data (lines, payments, attachments, notes). This clearly distinguishes it from list_receipts and related single-resource getters.

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 phrase 'one receipt by id' gives clear context for when to invoke this tool: when a specific receipt identifier is known. However, it doesn't explicitiy state exclusions or name alternatives like list_receipts for retrieving multiple receipts, though it is implied.

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