delhaize_list_receipts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares "Read only: opens nothing and writes nothing," plus the is_new flag semantics relative to receipts_all.json. It does not discuss auth requirements or rate limits, but the side-effect profile is unambiguous.

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?

Three short blocks, front-loaded with scope and the read-only guarantee, then the default rationale, then the return shape. No sentence is filler.

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?

Although no output schema and no annotations exist, the description covers both gaps by describing the returned object keys and the read-only nature. A brief note on what remains untouched (e.g., that fetch is a separate step with its own side effects) would make it fully self-contained.

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 0% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does: months_back is defined as extending the window backward and the default of 1 is explained as covering this month and last to catch a month boundary.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb (list), resource (Delhaize receipts), scope (current month plus months_back), and a distinctive behavior (flagging receipts absent from receipts_all.json). It is clearly separable from siblings like delhaize_fetch_new_receipts and delhaize_fetch_promotions.

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?

"Use this to preview before fetching" gives an explicit use context that routes the agent toward the fetch sibling, and the note that months_back=1 catches a month boundary explains the default. There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement, keeping it just below a 5.

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