Get receipt

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes well beyond them by enumerating the returned payload: title, status, USD totals and refunded amount, billing address, before/after balance, every covered transaction with batch_id and shipment_id, and reversals such as chargebacks.

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, front-loaded with the resource definition, and the second sentence is a dense but purposeful enumeration of the receipt's fields. Slightly long but nearly every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: an agent knows precisely which fields come back for a receipt and how transactions relate to batches and shipments. Nothing needed to call or interpret the result is missing.

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% and the single parameter is documented in-schema as coming from list_receipts, so the description's repetition of that origin adds nothing new. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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+resource ('one payment to Pirate Ship') and defines exactly what a receipt contains, then explicitly positions it as 'the receipt page of one payment from list_receipts', which separates it from the list sibling without requiring schema inspection.

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 phrase 'of one payment from list_receipts' tells the agent this is the detail view and where the identifier originates, giving clear usage context. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming alternatives for related data like list_transactions or list_refunds.

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