get_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get receipt') and states the data returned (line items, matched transaction), but does not disclose any potential side effects, authorization requirements, or limitations. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 brief with two sentences. The first sentence 'Get receipt.' is somewhat redundant but not harmful. The second sentence is informative. Could be combined into one sentence without loss, but overall it is concise and front-loaded with the key action.

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 retrieval tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it returns a single receipt with full details. The mention of 'line items and matched transaction' adds useful specificity. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and basic function.

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%, and the parameter 'id' is already described as 'Receipt ID' in the schema. The description adds 'by ID' but provides no additional semantics beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 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 verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'single receipt by ID', explicitly distinguishing from sibling tools like list_receipts (lists many) and get_transaction (different resource). The mention of 'full details including line items and matched transaction' specifies scope.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_receipts for multiple receipts, search_receipts for filtering). It implies needing a receipt ID but offers no context about prerequisites or 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.