xero_list_receipts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing and authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what data is returned, or any side effects. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.

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 short but contains redundant routing information and lacks substantive content. It is front-loaded with the tool name but wastes space on implementation details. Could be more concise while adding useful information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to state the tool's core purpose, provide usage guidance, or explain parameters. The agent cannot determine when or how to use this tool effectively from the description alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only describes the 'arguments' parameter as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal value beyond the schema type. No details on what valid arguments are or how to structure them.

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 states it is a Xero connector operation for 'list_receipts' but does not explicitly say it lists receipts from Xero. The purpose is implied by the name and the line 'Xero connector operation `list_receipts`', but lacks a clear verb-object statement. Among many xero_list_* siblings, it does not differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., xero_list_invoices or other xero_list_* tools). No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria. The description only provides routing context.

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