Get Action Receipts

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint: true, confirming safe read behavior. The description adds behavioral context beyond that, such as 'outcome-paired' receipts and the dual-mode behavior (specific vs. recent), which is not in the schema or annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Read outcome-paired action receipts') and then explains the conditional behavior efficiently.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage scenarios. It could mention edge cases like invalid actionId or sorting order of recent receipts, but the current description is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds the behavioral context that actionId is optional and that omitting it returns recent receipts, augmenting the schema's property descriptions with usage logic.

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 it reads 'outcome-paired action receipts' and distinguishes two modes: by actionId or most recent. The verb 'Read' and resource 'action receipts' are specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings with similar names like 'record_action_receipt'.

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 when to use the tool (to fetch a receipt for a specific actionId or the most recent receipts), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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