Get Paginated Receipt Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' statement adds little. But the description goes beyond annotations by detailing failure modes ('401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve') and the configuration default behavior, which are genuinely useful and not present in the structured metadata.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and covers multiple facets (views, defaults, read-only, errors, endpoint) in a compact block. Some redundancy exists ('Read-only' vs. 'it changes nothing in Procore', and the two 'Returns' statements), but overall it earns its length and is well-organized.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description gives useful context: error behavior, defaults, endpoint, and view types. However, it never explains the structure of the paginated response (e.g., metadata, page indicators, field set contents), nor does it offer explicit comparisons to alternative receipt endpoints, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description adds value by noting that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values when omitted and that 'Normal' is the default view, which is not fully clear from the schema alone. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Returns a paginated list of receipts with filtering and sorting options,' clearly distinguishing this as a list operation. View types and endpoint details further specify the scope. However, the sentence 'Use this when you already know which paginated receipt detail you want...' is confusing and does not cleanly differentiate from sibling tools like get_receipt_header_details_by_id or get_paginated_receipt_line_items, so it loses a point.

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?

The description provides partial guidance: it mentions when to use ('when you already know which paginated receipt detail you want and need its full field set') and notes defaulting behavior for company_id/project_id. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternative receipt-related tools, which would be valuable given the many siblings.

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