generate_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses only the primary action without detailing system behavior such as dependencies (e.g., booking must exist), side effects, error handling, or whether it is a read-only operation. This is minimal disclosure.

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 concise summary: a one-sentence purpose followed by a short Args list. It is front-loaded, contains no redundant content, and every sentence contributes meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, covering return format, but the description omits usage context such as when a receipt should be generated, whether the booking must already exist, and how provider affects the receipt. It is minimal but adequate for a simple tool, leaving room for improvement.

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 0% schema description coverage, the 'Args' section adds brief definitions for booking_ref and provider. It clarifies that booking_ref is an ID and provider is the booking provider, but it does not explain provider's default value, valid options, or optionality beyond the schema's default. The added value is moderate.

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 'Generate a formatted text receipt for a given booking reference,' which clearly identifies the action (generate) and the target (receipt for a booking). This is distinct from sibling tools like search_trips or create_booking, making it easy to differentiate.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_booking_history or initiate_payment. It only states the action without mentioning prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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