receipts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does deliver real context: authentication is required, results are ordered newest first, and the start date defaults to two years ago because the endpoint demands it. It omits pagination, result caps, and whether the summary form is truncated — meaningful gaps for a list tool with a two-year default range.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the login prerequisite in two short sentences, then a compact per-argument block. The parenthetical '(the endpoint requires it)' is slightly redundant but justifies the unusual default, so it earns its place.

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, so return values need no explanation, and both parameters are documented despite zero schema coverage. For a two-parameter read tool, the definition covers purpose, prerequisites, defaults, and output-shape selection; only pagination behavior is unaddressed, which is minor here.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'start_date' is given a format (ISO YYYY-MM-DD), a purpose, and the effective default of two years ago; 'full' is explained as returning raw receipts rather than the summary. The one gap is that the schema permits null for start_date, which the description only indirectly explains via the default behavior.

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?

States a specific resource ('Your digital till receipts') with scope ('in-store and online') and ordering ('newest first'), which an agent can distinguish from receipt_detail or receipt_products as the list-versus-detail distinction is implicit. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation depends on inference.

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?

'Requires login' gives one concrete prerequisite, and the newest-first list framing implies this is the entry point before receipt_detail. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when to call receipt_detail or receipt_products, and no guidance on what to do when the default two-year window is too broad.

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