Receipts List Receipts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, such as the source scope (uploaded/emailed) but nothing about pagination, output shape, or request limits. It is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and scope. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or the effect of fields/output_mode. While it is a simple list operation, the lack of detail on output shape and pagination makes it incomplete for an agent to use effectively without prior 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 description coverage is only 33% (fields and output_mode have descriptions; limit, offset, filters, and session_path lack them). The description mentions filtering by source or status, which adds meaning to the filters object, but it does not elaborate on pagination parameters or session handling. It partially compensates for the low coverage but not fully.

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 lists uploaded and emailed receipts with optional filtering. The verb 'List' and resource 'receipts' are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like receipts_upload_receipt or 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 description provides clear context that this is for listing receipts, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use a different list tool or fetch a single receipt). However, the purpose is unambiguous and no misleading guidance is given.

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