invariance_receipt_batch

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds the authentication requirement (AGENT API key only), which is useful additional context. However, it does not disclose batch-specific behaviors like partial failure semantics, idempotency, or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate—adds some value but not comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with the authentication caveat. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff. It is optimally concise and well-structured.

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 this is a batch write operation with no output schema, the description leaves out critical operational details such as response format, batch size limits, partial failure behavior, or whether the operation is atomic. The schema covers input formatting but not execution outcomes. The agent may be uncertain about what to expect after calling it. Since the tool is more complex than a simple read, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 the parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema, including structure, required and optional fields, and an example. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Per the baseline rule, a high-coverage schema sets the baseline at 3, and the description does not elevate it further.

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 action ('Record many external receipts in one call') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from single-receipt creation by the word 'many'. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tool (invariance_receipt_create) for batch vs. single comparison, so it lacks the explicit differentiation seen in high-scoring examples.

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?

It provides an important usage constraint (requires AGENT API key, operator tokens get 403), which is a clear authentication guideline. However, it does not specify when to use this batch tool versus the single-receipt alternative, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions beyond authentication. Guidance is implied by the 'many' keyword but not explicitly stated.

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