Receipts Get Receipt Settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it does not mention what settings are returned, whether any defaults apply, or whether the response shape varies. It does not contradict the annotations, but it provides no added value over them.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, which is concise. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness, since it omits meaningful detail about what the settings represent.

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?

With no output schema, the description should at least convey what the settings response contains, but it does not. The optional 'output_mode' parameter hints at return shapes, but the description gives no information about typical settings fields, defaults, or how the result relates to receipt workflows. Annotations mitigate safety concerns but not the completeness gap.

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%, so both 'fields' and 'output_mode' have clear descriptions and defaults in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already carries the semantic load, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 uses the verb 'Get' and the resource 'receipt settings', clearly identifying a read operation on settings. It is distinguishable from the sibling 'receipts_update_receipt_settings' by intent, but it does not specify what settings are included or how they differ from 'budget_get_budget_settings'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of related tools such as 'receipts_update_receipt_settings' or 'budget_get_budget_settings', and no context about typical use cases. The only implied usage is reading settings, which is already evident from the name.

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