get_cash_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Get the complete record', which hints at the return value but omits details like error handling, authentication, or what 'complete record' entails. This is insufficient without annotation support.

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 with a clear verb and object, front-loaded with the action. No wasted words.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description states the tool's purpose and ID type, but without an output schema, it should better describe what 'complete record' returns. It covers the basics but leaves some ambiguity.

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?

The schema has no description for cash_receipt_id (0% coverage), but the description clarifies that the ID is the 'Elorus ID', providing meaningful context beyond the parameter name. However, it lacks format examples or further elaboration, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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's function: retrieving a single cash receipt by its Elorus ID. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cash receipt'), and the scope ('single') distinguishes it from list_cash_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?

The phrase 'single cash receipt by its Elorus ID' implies this is for looking up one specific receipt, while list_cash_receipts would be for multiple. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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