recharge_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only' merely restates them. It adds no new behavioral context such as error handling for an unknown ID, authentication needs, or whether the receipt is a stable snapshot.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded. The trailing 'Read-only' clause earns little since annotations already state it, but nothing is bloated or buried.

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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema present, the description covers what is returned and by what key; return-value detail is correctly left to the output schema. It could say more about failure behavior for an invalid ID, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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 0%, so the schema documents nothing about recharge_id. The description clarifies that the identifier refers to a recharge/pass receipt, which is slightly more than the parameter name, but gives no format, source, or example of the ID.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return one recharge/pass receipt') plus the lookup key ('by its recharge ID'), which clearly distinguishes a single-record fetch from the list-style siblings like recharge_history. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 singular 'one ... receipt by its recharge ID' implies this is the lookup tool used when an ID is already known, as opposed to recharge_history for browsing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of what to do without an ID, and no named alternative.

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