Receipts: get all transactions assigned to a specific receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'READ-ONLY: Makes no changes' statement mostly restates structured metadata. It adds some context around the use case and directionality, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, confirmation behavior, or error conditions beyond what annotations and schema already convey.

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 compact and mostly front-loaded with the read-only indicator and the core purpose. Some repetition exists between the title, the bolded heading, and the first sentence, but each paragraph adds a distinct element: safety, primary function, usage example, and alternative sibling. The endpoint line is a small bonus.

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 only 2 parameters, full schema coverage, a rich output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It covers the use case, the source of a required parameter, the opposite-direction sibling, and confirms safety.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical value by explaining that `id_by_customer` can be obtained from `/receipts/get`, which is useful for locating the required parameter value. It also frames `receipt_id_by_customer` as the key identifier, reinforcing the schema without being redundant.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'get all transactions assigned to a specific receipt' for a given customer receipt. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `transactions_list_assigned_receipts` by naming it as the opposite direction. The scope is precise and an agent can distinguish this tool from sibling tools without opening the schema.

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 explicitly tells when to use it: to see which bank transactions are linked to a given receipt, e.g., checking whether an invoice has been matched to a payment. It also names the alternative for the opposite direction (`transactions_list_assigned_receipts`), and explains how to obtain `id_by_customer` via `/receipts/get method` first, which is actionable prerequisite guidance.

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