Report: Receiving History

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context: it is paginated and returns specific fields (SKU, quantities, purchase order, date information). It does not mention potential side effects or further behaviors, but the annotations lower the burden. This is adequate with some added value.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear structured format for arguments and returns. Every sentence contributes to understanding, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite having 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return content, pagination behavior, and output format options. It is sufficient for an agent to know what results to expect and how to invoke the tool, though it does not describe any filtering capabilities or limitations beyond pagination. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of all three parameters with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description's 'Args' section duplicates this information without adding new meaning. Since the schema already does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 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?

The description states 'Historical receipt records (inbound receiving history), paginated.' This clearly identifies the tool as a report for receiving history, using specific terminology ('receipt records', 'inbound receiving history') that distinguishes it from siblings like report_shipment_history. The verb is implied ('retrieve', 'list'), but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving historical receiving records but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It mentions 'paginated' and the return content, giving some context, but there is no exclusion or alternative guidance. A score of 3 reflects the implied usage without explicit guidance.

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