Create receipt

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that receipts are write-only (create and read only), that field names follow a specific API version, and error behavior (400 returns verbatim message). These are important behavioral traits. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, limitation, error handling. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 uses a generic 'body' parameter with nested objects and no output schema, the description could be more complete. It does not describe the return value (likely the created receipt) or prerequisites (e.g., needing existing items/customers). The reliance on external documentation reduces self-contained completeness.

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 description coverage is 100% (only one parameter 'body' with a description). The description adds the external API documentation URL and repeats the schema reference, but does not detail required fields or structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds little beyond 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 the tool creates a new receipt in Loyverse with the specific HTTP method and endpoint (POST /receipts). It also notes that receipts cannot be updated or deleted via the API, distinguishing it from update/delete tools, and the resource name 'receipt' differentiates it from other create tools among siblings.

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 guidance on when to use the tool (for creation) and limitations (no updates/deletes). It also instructs on error handling (adjust fields and retry on 400). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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