Receipts: get all transactions assigned to a specific receipt

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

The description explicitly states 'READ-ONLY — Fetches data. Makes no changes', which aligns with and expands on annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). No contradictions; adds beyond annotations by emphasizing safety.

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 extremely concise: a single line read-only note, a purpose sentence, a prerequisite hint, and the endpoint. Every sentence is essential, with no filler. The read-only indicator is front-loaded for instant 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 no output schema, the description could mention the structure of the returned transactions for completeness. However, the description adequately explains what the tool does and how to use it, with the prerequisite step. It's nearly complete but lacks a brief note on response format.

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 value by explaining how to get the key parameter (receipt_id_by_customer via /receipts/get) and briefly noting the confirmed_only filter's effect, going beyond the schema's dry descriptions.

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 retrieves all transactions assigned to a specific receipt, using the verb 'get' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'transactions_assigned_receipts_get' by focusing on the receipt-to-transactions direction.

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 a prerequisite (obtaining receipt_id_by_customer via /receipts/get), offering clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like transactions_assigned_receipts_get.

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