list_receipts

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, but it offers no behavioral details beyond the basic listing capability—nothing about default pagination limits (despite limit/offset params), that filtering by date range is inclusive, how deleted receipts behave, or what happens when no filters are applied. Given this is a read-only list operation with 13 params, more context would be valuable and is missing.

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 sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and the second lists the available filters. The front-loading of the resource type (inbound/outbound) immediately orients the agent.

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 list operation with 13 optional parameters and only 1 required field, the description adequately covers the 'what' but not the 'defaults'—there's no mention of pagination behavior, maximum page size implications, or what a typical response looks like. Since there's no output schema, some note on return format could improve it, but the description is minimally 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 all 13 parameters are documented (max=500, date formats, enum values for list_direction and payment_status). The description's filter mentions (period, payment status, counterparty, invoice number) mirror existing schema params without adding new meaning, landing right at the baseline.

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 verb ('Ruft...ab' = retrieves) and the specific resource (Belege/Eingangs- oder Ausgangsbelege), making the function immediately clear. It differentiates from siblings by explicitly scoping to both inbound and outbound receipt retrieval with filtering, which distinguishes it from get_receipt (single fetch) and create/delete/upload receipt variants.

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 when to use the tool through its filter list (time period, payment status, counterparty, invoice number) but never explicitly contrasts it with sibling tools like get_receipt for single records or mentions when NOT to use it. There's no mention of alternatives, though the filter focus suggests a search/list use case.

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