list_receipts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'list' which implies read-only, but does not mention any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, security requirements, or whether results are cached. Minimal behavioral insight.

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?

Extremely concise at one sentence, no wasted words. However, it could be improved by front-loading key constraints (e.g., 'recent' definition) without adding length.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should at least hint at the return format or included fields. It omits important context like ordering (by date?), the meaning of 'recent,' and whether results are paginated. Incomplete for a list tool.

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 100%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Both parameters (limit and action_type) are already explained in the schema, making further elaboration unnecessary.

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 action (list) and resource (recent receipts for this workspace). It distinguishes from sibling tools like issue_receipt and verify_receipt by focusing on listing recent items.

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 on when to use versus alternatives like verify_receipt_by_hash for specific receipts or get_policy for policy details. The context of 'recent' is ambiguous, and no exclusions are provided.

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