Prepare receipt text analysis

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows it is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: analysis records are persisted by ReceiptCal and no meal is logged, which is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure annotations cannot convey. It omits the confirm/cancel staging flow, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the side-effect disclaimer immediately after. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.

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 low-complexity one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly adequate, and it correctly discloses the persistence side effect. The significant omission is that a 'prepare_' tool in this family is expected to be paired with confirm_action/cancel_action before taking effect — an agent would not learn that here.

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 0% for the single 'text' parameter, so the description carries the burden. It does clarify that the input is receipt text rather than free text, but adds no format, encoding, or length expectations despite the 100000-char cap in the schema. Marginal value over the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Stage an upload of receipt text for deterministic ReceiptCal nutrition analysis.' This clearly separates it from the text-vs-file distinction implied by the sibling 'prepare_analyze_receipt_file', though the sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'stage an upload' phrasing, suggesting a preliminary step, but the description never states when to prefer this over prepare_analyze_receipt_file, nor that it must be followed by confirm_action. The 'no meal is logged' note clarifies a boundary but is framed as a side-effect caveat rather than routing guidance.

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