receipt_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does add meaningful behavioral context by stating this is local and makes zero API calls, implying an offline read-only lookup. It does not describe behavior for unknown ids, empty results, or whether the local receipt store is persistent, which leaves some transparency gaps.

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 short sentences with the primary action and filter dimensions front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: the search criteria, the loop context, and the cost/behavior note 'Local, zero API calls.' There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a clear role, search dimensions, and a strong localization signal. However, it omits the result behavior beyond response_format, such as what happens when no receipt matches, and does not disambiguate against receipt-related siblings like verify_receipt. This is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete for an agent choosing among many similar 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 100%: id, uri, since, and response_format all already have descriptions, and response_format has an enum with explanations of each output style. The description's filter list (id, date range, affected URI) maps cleanly to the parameters but adds no semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the documentation work.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') plus a clear resource ('mutation receipts') and enumerates the lookup dimensions: id, date range, or affected URI. The 'issue → lookup' loop context also clarifies the tool's role in the mutation workflow. It does not explicitly name a sibling like verify_receipt, so differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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?

'Closes the receipts loop (issue → lookup)' gives a usable trigger condition: after a mutation is issued, look up its receipt here. 'Local, zero API calls' adds a practical selection signal. However, the description does not state when to prefer a sibling such as verify_receipt or mutation_log_export, so exclusions and alternatives are left implied.

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