gold_etsy_shop_receipts

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral context. It discloses filtering ('Filter min made_out/paid date'), authentication ('BYOK'), and access gating ('PAID ONLY PRO $29'), but these are cryptic and it does not state whether the operation is read-only or what happens on failure or missing credentials.

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 with the core purpose, which is structurally good. However, it includes the cryptic 'PAID ONLY PRO $29' and 'BYOK' without explanation, so it achieves brevity at the expense of clarity.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not explain what each parameter does, what receipts are returned, whether pagination via limit is required, or what 'BYOK' and 'PRO' mean operationally. An agent would likely need to guess or rely on external knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters, but it never names 'limit' or 'was_paid'. The date-filter phrase has no matching schema field, and 'PAID ONLY' may hint at was_paid but is ambiguous, leaving the agent without concrete parameter meaning.

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 phrase 'Real orders (receipts) for your hop' clearly identifies the resource (shop receipts/orders) and implies retrieval; it is distinct from sibling listing and inventory tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'list', and the eRank comparison is more marketing than precise specification.

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 implies a use case (actual receipts instead of eRank estimates) but never explicitly states when to call this tool versus a sibling, what prerequisites apply, or when not to use it. 'BYOK' and 'PAID ONLY' hint at access requirements but do not explain how they affect tool selection.

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