Receipts Match Receipt

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description need not restate that this mutates data. It adds a useful detail by specifying the effect: 'This may create or update Monarch data.' It does not describe side effects such as duplicate matching or whether an existing match is replaced.

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 very short and front-loads the core action in the first sentence. The second sentence about creating/updating Monarch data earns its place as a behavioral warning, though the overall terseness sacrifices useful operational detail.

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 mutating tool with two undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what matching a receipt means, when to use this instead of unmatch/upload, or what happens to an existing match. The schema conveys parameter structure but not enough contextual semantics.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description needed to clarify the required receipt_id and transaction_id, but it does not. The names are self-explanatory to some degree, yet the description adds no meaning about how the two parameters relate or what kinds of values are expected.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource, 'Match receipt,' which clearly identifies the operation of linking a receipt to a transaction (implied by required transaction_id). It is clear enough at a high level but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as receipts_unmatch_receipt or receipts_upload_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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that unmatch_receipt reverses this operation or that this is the tool to associate an existing receipt with a transaction, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.

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