record_cash_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 discloses that amounts must be strings and that invoice linking is optional, but does not describe side effects, return values, or constraints like duplicate detection.

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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The core action and key constraint are front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

While the core action is clear, there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., receipt ID), how errors are handled, or mention any prerequisites (e.g., client must exist). For a tool with 8 parameters, more context would be beneficial.

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 the schema already documents parameters. The description adds only that amounts must be strings, which is redundant with the schema. No additional meaning beyond the schema is provided.

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 'Record a payment received from a client' and mentions optional invoice linking. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_cash_payment (likely supplier-side) and provides a specific verb-resource pairing.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies client payment recording but offers no comparison to record_cash_payment or other transaction tools. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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