List receipts

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results are newest first, that payments may come from card, PayPal, or bank, and that each row includes status, description, and total in US dollars. It does not discuss pagination limits or rate limits, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is a solid addition.

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 short and front-loaded: the purpose and sibling distinction come first, followed by the table context and the downstream get_receipt use. Every sentence provides useful information without 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?

For a filterable list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description supplies enough context to understand what records are returned and how this differs from get_receipt. It leaves pagination and most filter semantics to the input schema, but the overall definition remains usable.

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 description only indirectly covers one parameter by saying results are 'newest first,' which aligns with the sort default. It does not explain limit, offset, or the filtering behavior for search, status, from_date, or to_date, and with only 57% schema description coverage it does not compensate for the parameters whose schemas lack descriptions.

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 identifies the resource as payments made to Pirate Ship and states the default ordering. It also explicitly distinguishes the single-record sibling tool by saying 'get_receipt shows one,' so an agent can tell list_receipts apart from get_receipt without opening either schema.

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 gives clear context for using this tool: it lists account payments, while get_receipt shows a single receipt. It routes the agent to get_receipt when a receipt_id is available, but it does not explicitly exclude related listing tools such as 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.