create_sales_receipt

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides almost none: it doesn't disclose required permissions/scopes, that it writes a ledger transaction affecting receivables and a deposit account, what happens on validation failure, or what the response contains. Only "Create" signals a mutation, which the name already conveys.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient but borders on under-specified for a mutation tool with a large nested payload.

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 create/mutation tool with a nested 8-field object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum say what is returned (the receipt Id) and note key expected inputs or defaults. Neither is covered, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking it the first time.

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?

The schema's nested field descriptions (customer_ref, line_items, tax_code_ref, global_tax_calculation) are reasonably detailed, so the structured data does most of the work. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and says nothing about the params wrapper, the txn_date default, or how payment/deposit fields interact.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Create a sales receipt") with a parenthetical that defines the accounting meaning ("immediate payment sale"), which distinguishes it from the many other create_* siblings such as create_invoice. It stops short of explicitly contrasting it with the closest siblings, so it isn't a 5.

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?

"Immediate payment sale" implies the usage context (money received at time of sale), which nudges an agent away from create_invoice, but the description never states when to use this instead of create_invoice, create_payment, or create_refund_receipt. No prerequisites, no exclusions.

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