mhlb_print_transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool may create a file but not destroy data. The description adds a key behavioral quirk: 'the endpoint renders that record, it does not look one up by id', which is beyond the annotations. This clarifies the tool's dependency on the passed object, adding 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The main action and critical caveat are front-loaded, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It covers the essential usage and the one non-obvious behavior. It doesn't mention optional parameters, but those are in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat them.

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 100%, so all four parameters are documented. The description reinforces the 'transaction' parameter by stating to pass the object from mhlb_get_transaction, but this is largely redundant with the schema description. It adds no new meaning for the other parameters, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('printable receipt PDF for one transaction'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like mhlb_get_transaction (which fetches data) and mhlb_print_orders (which prints multiple). The added 'does not look one up by id' further differentiates from any id-based tool.

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?

It clearly instructs to pass the transaction object from mhlb_get_transaction, which gives the context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the requirement of having a transaction object is implicit. Could be improved by naming mhlb_print_orders for batch printing, but the guidance is sufficient.

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