list_cash_receipts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It states that results are paginated and filterable, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only or mention other traits like sorting defaults or response structure, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every word serves a function, achieving maximum conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, pagination, and filtering. It is complete for a simple list operation, though it could mention that the response contains cash receipt objects or default sorting. Overall, it provides adequate context for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing filterable fields ('client, invoice, or date range'), but it does not mention pagination parameters (page, page_size) or the ordering parameter, which are part of the schema. Thus, the description adds 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 clearly states 'List payments received from clients,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_cash_payments' by specifying 'from clients,' implying inbound payments. This effectively differentiates the tool from its counterpart.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: for listing payments received from clients with pagination and filtering. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, such as noting that 'list_cash_payments' is for payments to clients. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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