Get receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping detail that exactly one receipt is fetched by receipt number, but it does not disclose error behavior, return format, or whether the receipt number must be globally unique. This is acceptable but not additive beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it an example of efficient specification.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter read-only fetch, and the description provides enough information for selection and invocation. The absence of return-format or not-found behavior is a minor gap, but given the low complexity and existing annotations, the description is reasonably complete.

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 provides no description for receipt_number, so the description carries the burden. It only restates that lookup is 'by its receipt number,' which adds little beyond the parameter's own name. No format, source, uniqueness, or validation details are provided, so the parameter semantics remain thin.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch'), a precise resource ('one receipt'), and the identifying key ('receipt number'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like loyverse_list_receipts or loyverse_refund_receipt without ambiguity.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a single receipt when its receipt number is known, but it does not explicitly mention when to use an alternative such as loyverse_list_receipts for multiple receipts. There is no exclusion or routing guidance, so the usage context is only implicit.

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