list_receipts

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description's contribution is the return shape: page, last_page, total. That is genuinely useful given there is no output schema, but it omits default page size, ordering behavior, and what a receipt record contains.

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, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the response shape. The parenthetical gloss on "corrispettivo" earns its place as disambiguation; otherwise there is no filler.

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 six-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and pagination but leaves the agent to infer filtering/fieldset effects entirely from the schema. Adequate but with clear gaps around what is returned and how it relates to sibling listing tools.

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 67% and the schema itself documents the non-obvious parameters (q filter syntax, sort prefix, fieldset values, company_id default). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource ("Elenca corrispettivo") and disambiguates the term with "scontrino / ricevuta giornaliera", so an agent knows this enumerates daily receipts. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as get_receipt or receipts_monthly_totals.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this list versus get_receipt (single fetch) or receipts_monthly_totals (aggregates), and no mention of prerequisites. The only usage-adjacent information is that results are paginated.

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