get_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 discloses almost nothing: it does not state that the call is read-only and non-mutating, what happens when the ID does not exist (error vs. null), or whether the full receipt with line items is returned. For a simple read this is a modest but real gap.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though so terse that efficiency shades into under-specification.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description needn't explain return values, but it should still cover read-only behavior and the not-found case given there are no annotations to fall back on. As written it is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 single required parameter 'id' is already documented in the schema as 'The QuickBooks Sales Receipt ID', and the description only echoes 'by ID' without adding format, source, or validation context. With one parameter and schema-level documentation present, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get a single sales receipt') and adds scope ('by ID'), which distinguishes it from the sibling search_sales_receipts without naming it explicitly. It is unambiguous what the tool returns, but stops short of naming the sibling directly.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of search_sales_receipts as the alternative for listing or filtering, and no stated preconditions such as needing a valid ID obtained from a prior search. The 'by ID' phrasing implies a lookup use case, but the agent must infer it from a crowded sibling list.

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