Receipts: get receipt by id_by_customer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description repeats the read-only nature but adds minimal behavioral context beyond that (e.g., response returns an array of receipt data). It does not elaborate on rate limits, required permissions, or error conditions. The description adds little value over 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?

The description is somewhat verbose with repetitive elements (emoji, bold title, endpoint). It contains three sentences plus the endpoint line; some parts are unnecessary (e.g., repeating the tool name). Could be more concise and front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description mentions that the response includes an array of receipt data but lacks details about receipt fields or pagination. It also does not summarize parameter purposes beyond what the schema provides. Given the tool's simplicity, it is marginally adequate but incomplete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters (api_key and get_file) fully described. The description adds no additional meaning or syntax details for these parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get') and the resource ('a single receipt for a specified customer account by id_by_customer'). It explains the need to first retrieve the identifier from another endpoint. However, the name and title are redundant and confusing ('id_by_customer' is awkward), and it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like receipts_get.

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 mentions how to obtain the required identifier ('using /receipts/get method first'), which provides a prerequisite. But it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., receipts_get) or when not to use it. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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