list_cash_receipts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ({count, page, results}), filter behavior including the both-dates rule, and the distinction from get_cash_receipt. It does not explicitly describe pagination behavior for page/page_size, but the mention of 'page' in the return structure hints at it.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a bulleted filter list, and a note about the return format and alternative tool. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy.

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 list tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, filters (including transaction type codes), return format, and the path to full records. It lacks explicit mention of pagination semantics, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward listing endpoint.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains five of the seven parameters in clear detail (period_from/to, contact, invoice, transaction_type with code meanings). However, page and page_size are not described beyond their existence in the schema; they are left to inference, though they have defaults.

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: 'List cash receipts (payments received) with summary fields.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cash_receipt by noting that it returns summary fields and full records are obtained via the sibling.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus getting full details ('use get_cash_receipt for the full record'). It also details the filter application rule ('period_from / period_to ... only applied when BOTH are given'), which is a usage prerequisite.

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