list_sale_receipts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions that the tool uses 'Bigcapital list filters,' which hints at filtering support but does not explain pagination, default result size, whether all receipts are returned, or any other runtime behavior. A list operation that returns an unspecified set of records is not transparent enough.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no verbosity or wasted text, though the phrase 'Bigcapital list filters' is vague and could have been replaced with more useful detail without hurting conciseness.

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?

Given six optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not specify how parameters combine, what the response shape looks like, or what the default behavior is when no arguments are provided. This is not enough context for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly in varied scenarios.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate by explaining the less obvious parameters such as filterRoles, viewSlug, and customViewId. It does not. 'Bigcapital list filters' is too generic to add real meaning, and the only parameters with any clarity are already described in the schema (sortBy and searchTerm).

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 a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('sale receipts'), and the qualifier 'using Bigcapital list filters' signals the tool's filtering behavior. It is clearly distinct from get_sale_receipt and from list_invoices/list_bills due to the explicit resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_sale_receipt for a single receipt or list_invoices for other document types. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or 'use X instead' hints. The intended usage is only implicitly derived from the name and description.

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