create_sales_receipt

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it accepts names for auto-lookup and returns receipt details and a link. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., recording a transaction), prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or error handling (e.g., what happens if lookup fails).

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 three sentences long, each sentence carrying distinct value: purpose, key behavior, and output. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main behaviors and output. However, it omits mention of the draft parameter's default (true), which is important for understanding the tool's validation mode. Overall, it is fairly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described. The description adds value by highlighting the auto-lookup pattern and the critical distinction that lines should refer to items, not accounts. This is additional context beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 tool creates a sales receipt, emphasizes that lines reference items (products/services) not accounts, and distinguishes from siblings like edit_sales_receipt and get_sales_receipt. It also mentions automatic ID lookup and returns details and a link.

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 provides a key guideline: lines reference items not accounts, which helps avoid misuse. It also mentions the automatic ID lookup feature. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like create_invoice or explain when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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