Get a receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the eventual-consistency behavior ('still being created'; retry after a second) and the concrete contents returned per format, which are not derivable from annotations.

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?

Front-loads the resource and scope, then the two format outcomes, then the retry caveat. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the parenthetical '(чек)' and the somewhat compressed format sentences slightly reduce readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of explaining return values and does so for both formats, plus the transient 'still being created' state. What it does not cover, such as error shape or whether tax_url may be absent for pending receipts, is minor.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning to the 'format' enum by enumerating what the json variant contains (goods, payments, taxes, discounts, fiscal number, status, tax_url) versus the literal printed text, beyond the schema's brief 'structured object' / 'printable plain-text form'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns one receipt') and scopes it to a single record, which implicitly separates it from the sibling search_receipts. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 (fetch a known receipt by id), and it adds a useful retry instruction for freshly created receipts. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance, e.g. nothing telling the agent to prefer search_receipts when the id is unknown.

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