list_receipts

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring a safe read, the description adds return-shape context (summaries with totals, line items, payment info), which is real value absent an output schema. It does not disclose pagination behavior or the default/limit semantics, so it stops short of full transparency.

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?

Three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, filters second, and the how-to-use hint last. Each sentence carries weight, though the receipt/ticket parenthetical and the returns clause could be marginally tightened.

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 7-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what comes back, and the date-filtering modes. The notable gap is pagination behavior despite cursor/limit parameters, but otherwise an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so every parameter (period, from, to, store_id, receipt_numbers, limit, cursor) is already documented in the schema. The description names the date-filter styles but adds no format, precedence, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb (search/list) and resource (receipts, clarified as tickets) plus the filter axes available. An agent can distinguish it from get_receipt (single lookup) and other list_* siblings without opening the schema.

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 last sentence tells the agent how to use the date filters (presets vs explicit from/to), which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never states when to choose this tool over get_receipt for a known receipt, nor any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the core routing decision implied.

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