Receipt extraction

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

The description transparently discloses the cost behavior: 'Costs credits from the account wallet.' This is meaningful beyond the annotations, which only state readOnlyHint=false. Since annotations don't cover billing side effects, this addition provides important behavioral context.

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 short and includes two useful pieces of information: output categories and cost. However, the first sentence is grammatically awkward and missing a verb ('A receipt into merchant...'), which hurts clarity and polish.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, output fields, domain context, and cost, which is decent for a simple extraction tool. With no output schema, it does not describe return format, and it lacks guidance on choosing among the four input options or differentiating from invoice/statement extraction siblings.

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 parameters text, fileUrl, fileBase64, and fileMimeType are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond listing output fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (receipt) and the output categories (merchant, items, totals, payment method, expense category), and the title reinforces 'Receipt extraction'. However, the first sentence lacks an explicit verb like 'parses' or 'extracts', making it grammatically incomplete and slightly ambiguous.

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 phrase 'built for expense flows' provides useful usage context, implying this tool should be used when processing receipts for expense reporting. However, it does not mention alternatives among the many parserail siblings or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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