siigo_get_payment_receipts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get list' implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the returned data will have. It also doesn't explain that this is a paginated endpoint (implied by the parameters but not stated).

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list retrieval tool and is front-loaded with the essential information.

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 simple read operation with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about authentication, error handling, return format, and differentiation from similar tools. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally provide more information about what data is returned.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter documentation, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, but doesn't need to compensate for any gaps since schema coverage is complete.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of payment receipts from Siigo'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'siigo_get_payment_receipt' (singular), which appears to retrieve a single receipt versus this tool's list retrieval.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention the pagination parameters or explain when this list retrieval is appropriate compared to the singular 'siigo_get_payment_receipt' tool or other data retrieval tools in the system.

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