therapyportal_list_receipts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds context beyond annotations by describing returned fields and the functional linkage to download_receipt, though it omits pagination or result limits.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the useful cross-tool linkage. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.

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 with no output schema, the description does enough: it specifies returned fields and the downstream payment_id use case. The view parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the remaining gap is minor, such as pagination behavior.

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% and the single view parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema. The description does not mention the view parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 (list) and resource (payments), enumerates the returned fields, and distinguishes itself by naming the sibling tool that consumes the payment_id. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it relates to download_receipt.

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?

Explicitly links to therapyportal_download_receipt by explaining it returns the payment_id that tool takes, with an example use case for insurance or HSA/FSA claims. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause, but the sibling routing is clear.

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