jumbo_list_receipts

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the returned fields (date, store location, transaction ID), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about authentication/loyalty-account requirements (a jumbo_login sibling exists), sort order, or rate limits. 'List' weakly implies a safe read, but that is inference, not disclosure.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Even the parenthetical '(kassabonnen)' earns its place by matching Dutch-language queries.

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, zero-required-parameter read tool, the description plus a fully documented schema is close to sufficient, and with no output schema the description usefully enumerates returned fields. It still omits default ordering, pagination limits beyond the schema, and any hint that login may be required.

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% for both parameters (page, page_size) including defaults and min/max bounds, so the schema does all the work. The description adds no pagination or page-size semantics, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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 (List) and resource (Jumbo supermarket store receipts) with a scope qualifier ('recent'), so the agent knows this is an unfiltered recent-receipts listing. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling jumbo_search_receipts, leaving the list-vs-search split implicit.

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?

'Recent' hints at browsing recent receipts with no query filters, which implies search_receipts is for targeted lookups, but this is never stated. No when-not conditions, prerequisites (login?), or named alternatives are given.

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