invariance_receipt_get

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

Annotations already cover read-only behavior, so the description only adds the qualifier 'external'. It does not disclose any behavioral nuances such as whether the receipt is fetched from an external system, what errors may occur, or how the ID is resolved. The description barely goes beyond the annotation profile.

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 sentence with no filler. It is perfectly economical and front-loaded, stating the operation and target in four 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 one-parameter, read-only getter, the description is minimally viable: the agent can infer how to invoke it. However, the 'external' qualifier is unexplained and there is no output schema, leaving the return shape and the meaning of 'external' unclear.

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?

One parameter 'id' is covered only by 'by ID', which restates the parameter name. With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining the ID format, origin, or required form, but it does not.

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 precisely states the action ('Get'), the resource ('external receipt'), and the mechanism ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like invariance_receipt_create and invariance_receipt_list by matching singular retrieval to an ID-based lookup.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you have a specific receipt ID and need the corresponding receipt. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related listing or creation tools, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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