get_sale_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' implies read-only retrieval, but the description does not mention return shape, not-found/error behavior, permissions, or idempotence, and it adds nothing beyond the tool name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it optimally concise for the small amount of information it provides.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter, the description and schema are sufficient to attempt invocation. However, with no output schema and no mention of error behavior or how IDs should be obtained from list_sale_receipts, it remains minimally viable 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 schema has one required integer id with zero property descriptions. The phrase 'by ID' confirms id identifies the sale receipt, which is the key semantic needed, but it offers no extra guidance on how to discover valid IDs or interpret the response.

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?

Uses a specific verb 'et' and resource 'sale receipt', with 'y ID' indicating singular retrieval. It is clearly distinguishhed from list/create/update/close sale receipt siblings, but it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 is given on when to use this tool instead of list_sale_receipts or how to obtain a valid sale receipt ID. The only context comes from the tool name and sibling list, so the description itself provides no usage direction.

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