List transaction receipts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: receipts come 'from any source (you, Starling, or partners)', which tells the agent to expect heterogeneous data. It does not describe return format or pagination, so it earns a moderate score.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing can be removed without losing information.

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 read-only list tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and whose schema is fully documented, the description is nearly sufficient. It states what is returned ('all itemised receipts'), leaving only minor gaps around result shape and whether multiple receipts can exist per transaction.

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%, with all three parameters fully documented including defaults for accountUid and categoryUid. The description only implies that feedItemUid maps to 'a transaction', adding no meaningful semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (gets) and resource (all itemised receipts for a transaction), and the plural 'all' implicitly contrasts with the singular get_transaction_receipt sibling. However, it never names that sibling or otherwise explicitly differentiates the two, leaving the distinction to inference.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_transaction_receipt or list_transaction_attachments. It simply restates the operation without helping the agent decide when this tool is the right pick.

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