invariance_receipt_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It does add behavioral context by framing the parameters as filters for a listing operation. It doesn't disclose ordering, completeness, or pagination behavior, but with annotations covering the read-only profile, the additional burden is limited.

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 that immediately identifies the tool's purpose, followed by a compact list of filter dimensions. There is no filler or repetition of schema field names; every phrase earns its place.

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?

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too thin to fully orient an agent. It does not explain how filters combine, whether results are paginated, what the default limit is, or what fields appear in the response. An agent could call it, but it would be guessing about pagination and output structure.

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 only 11%, so the description carries meaningful weight for parameters. It maps most filter parameters to conceptual dimensions ('run, node, source, kind, external_id, business object'), which is helpful. However, it omits business_object_type and says nothing about limit or cursor semantics beyond what the schema's cursor description already provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List external receipts.' The filter list adds useful scoping, and 'external' helps distinguish this from receipt creation and retrieval tools. It stops short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like invariance_receipt_get, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 implies usage by saying 'Filter by run, node, source, kind, external_id, business object,' which tells an agent what inputs are acceptable. However, it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over invariance_receipt_get or invariance_receipt_create, nor does it mention pagination behavior or default limits. The context is adequate but not explicit.

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