Missing Receipts Report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Show' (implying read-only) but does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, how 'missing receipts' is determined, or whether there are any side effects or prerequisites. The CRA comment is motivational, not behavioral.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a concise rationale. Every word contributes value, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks any information about the fiscal_year parameter's format/necessity, what the output looks like, and whether the operation is read-only. The tool's simplicity lowers the bar, but the missing parameter guidance and behavioral clarity make it incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented fiscal_year parameter. It fails to mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess the format (e.g., '2024' vs '2024-12-31') and whether the tool filters by year or requires it. This is a significant gap.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Show all transactions that are missing receipts.' This is a specific verb+resource structure that distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_receipt or scan_receipts_folder, which are about adding/scanning receipts rather than reporting missing ones.

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 context by adding 'CRA can deny deductions without proper documentation,' suggesting it's useful for tax preparation. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like tax_health_check or what_records_do_i_need, nor does it provide any exclusion criteria.

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