get_loyalty_order_receipts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses pagination behavior ('paginated list', 'scroll paging token and scroll hash'), lists the fields returned (transaction date, store name, receipt number, etc.), and notes authentication requirements ('requires an authenticated Carrefour session'). It does not cover error conditions or rate limits, but it goes well beyond the minimal burden.

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 four-sentence description is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps the most important detail (what is retrieved) first. Each sentence adds necessary context—returned fields, pagination, and authentication—but the use-case sentence and parenthetical auth note are slightly redundant with the opening sentence.

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-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thorough: it covers the data source, API path, pagination mechanism, required authentication, and an example use case. It could mention behavior on empty results or token expiration, but the complexity does not demand it.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'scroll paging token and scroll hash' maps directly to the scrollPaging and scrollHash parameters but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already documents, such as token usage patterns.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Retrieves' and clearly identifies the resource: 'in-store purchase receipts associated with the authenticated user's loyalty card on Carrefour France.' This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling tools like get_loyalty_cards, get_last_orders, and get_loyalty_order_receipt_details by scoping it to the paginated list of in-store receipts.

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 clear use case: 'Useful for displaying the user's in-store purchase history linked to their loyalty card.' However, it never explicitly names alternatives (e.g., get_orders for online orders) or states when not to use this tool, which prevents a 5.

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