Get Jumbo Receipt Details

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

readOnlyHint already declares safety; the description adds real value by detailing the returned fields (deposit/statiegeld, Extra's points, payment method). It does not contradict annotations, but it stops short of describing format or error behavior.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the enumerated fields. Nothing is redundant and every field listed carries informational value for the agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned data so the agent knows what to expect. Combined with the fully documented single param, the definition is close to complete for a simple read tool.

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% and there is a single required parameter fully documented in the schema, which even names its source tool. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb (get) and resource (receipt details) and enumerates exactly what is returned: line items, unit prices, discounts, total, deposit, payment method, points. It does not explicitly name the sibling jumbo_list_receipts in the text, but the schema ties the transaction_id back to it.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch details for one specific receipt identified by transaction_id. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus jumbo_list_receipts or jumbo_search_receipts, though the schema hint 'from jumbo_list_receipts' quietly signals the sequence.

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