Receipts List Receipts

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the value of scoping the result set to uploaded/emailed receipts and revealing the filter capability. It does not contradict annotations, but it also adds no behavioral depth beyond that scope — pagination behavior, default ordering, and result-set shape are left to the schema and inference.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then packs scope and capability into the second clause. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a tool of this simplicity. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 moderate-complexity list tool, the description plus strong annotations and a reasonably detailed schema give an agent enough to call it correctly: the purpose, filter dimensions, output-shape controls (output_mode and fields are schema-described), and pagination knobs with defaults. Remaining gaps — default ordering, explicit pagination behavior, and no output schema describing the return envelope — are minor for this tool class and partially covered by the output_mode parameter description.

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 40%, so the description must partially compensate for the undocumented limit, offset, and filters parameters. It does name the two filter dimensions (source, status), giving meaning to the otherwise undescribed ReceiptFilterInput object. It does not, however, clarify limit/offset semantics or how filters combine with them. The schema itself documents fields and output_mode well, creating a mixed picture.

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 a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('receipts') and adds distinguishing scope: 'uploaded and emailed receipts.' It also surfaces the optional filtering dimensions (source, status), going beyond a mere tautology of the title. The plural list verb and source dimension clearly separate it from siblings like receipts_get_receipt, receipts_upload_receipt, and receipts_delete_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?

The usage context is implied by the verb and resource: this is the collection-listing operation for receipts, in contrast to singular get/create/update/delete siblings. However, the description never explicitly states when to prefer it over receipts_get_receipt or how it relates to receipts_upload_receipt/receipts_match_receipt. No exclusions or alternative routing are given, so the agent must infer the boundary from naming conventions alone.

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