get_sales_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns full details including the SyncToken necessary for edits, and lists the return fields (customer, date, deposit account, department, line details). This is good transparency about the tool's behavior, though it does not mention potential errors or permissions.

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 very concise, with two sentences. The first sentence states the action and key detail (SyncToken for edits). The second lists what is returned. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention that the ID is required and must be valid, but overall it provides sufficient context for a straightforward fetch operation.

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 only one parameter 'id' with a basic description. The description adds context by stating the ID is needed for fetching and that SyncToken is included for edits. However, with 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches a single sales receipt by ID, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_sales_receipt and edit_sales_receipt by focusing on retrieval. Mentioning 'SyncToken needed for edits' provides additional context.

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 usage for viewing or preparing to edit a sales receipt but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool over other similar get_* tools or provide alternative suggestions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it.

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