search_receiving_receipts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Look up'), but does not disclose what happens if the receipt is not found, the format of the results, or any behavior beyond the lookup. Minimal behavioral context.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It directly states the purpose and a key constraint. Excellent conciseness.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should hint at return values or error handling. It does not mention what the response contains or any conditions. Incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.

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 the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds emphasis that the receipt number is 'REQUIRED by the Oracle API', which marginally reinforces the requirement but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema.

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 states the tool looks up a goods receiving receipt by receipt number. It uses specific verb 'Look up' and resource 'receiving receipt'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'search_receipts', which may have similar functionality.

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 only mentions that receipt number is required, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_receipts or other search tools). There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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