Receipts List Receipts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a safe, read-only operation. The description does not provide additional behavioral context, so it meets the baseline without adding extra value beyond annotations.

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 concise with a single sentence. It earns its place but lacks structure or additional detail. It is not verbose, but could be improved by adding brief context.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema. It does not mention the output format, filtering capabilities, or how to control the data returned. Given the complexity of the input schema and the presence of many sibling tools, more context is needed to use the tool effectively.

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 low (33%), with only fields and output_mode described in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics, leaving 4 parameters (limit, offset, filters, session_path) undocumented. This is insufficient for correct parameter usage.

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 states the verb ('list') and resource ('receipts'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from other receipt tools, such as getting a single receipt or matching receipts.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool instead of other receipt-related tools like receipts_get_receipt or receipts_match_receipt.

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