etsy_list_receipts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one useful behavioral detail: the 'transactions_r' scope requirement. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only list operation, nor does it cover pagination, rate limits, or response shape. The auth requirement adds value but the behavioral context remains thin.

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 very short and has no filler, but it is terse to the point of being elliptical. Both sentences contribute information, yet the phrase 'Orders in a shop' is not a complete sentence and could be clearer. It is concise but sacrifices expressiveness.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It explains neither the filter parameters nor the return behavior, and it gives no selection context relative to siblings. The 'transactions_r' requirement is helpful, but it is the only contextual signal beyond the schema.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of shop_id, limit, offset, was_paid, or was_shipped. 'Orders in a shop' only hints at the shop_id parameter, while the boolean filters and pagination semantics are completely unexplained.

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 identifies the resource as orders/receipts within a shop, which aligns with the tool name 'list_receipts' and helps distinguish it from sibling tools that target listings or the current user. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'retrieves', but the resource and scope are clear enough.

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 only usage-related information is the required 'transactions_r' scope, which is a precondition rather than guidance on when to use this tool. It does not mention alternatives like etsy_list_listings, etsy_list_operations, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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