Receipts: restore deleted receipt by id_by_customer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that this is a WRITE operation that reverts prior state and is reversible, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not describe side effects on related transactions or repeated restores.

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 front-loaded but repetitive, restating the restore concept multiple times. The opening parenthetical mentioning 'un-confirm a posting' adds noise because it is not the focus of this tool and could confuse an agent selecting between siblings.

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?

The description is reasonably complete for a simple restore operation: it names the target resource, the trigger, the prerequisite lookup, and the endpoint. It is weaker operationally because the key identifier `id_by_customer` is referenced in prose but absent from the structured input schema, leaving ambiguity about how the tool call should be constructed.

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?

With zero input-schema parameters, the baseline is 4. The description contributes meaningful parameter guidance by identifying `id_by_customer` as the restore key and explaining how to obtain it. The main gap is that the input schema does not actually expose `id_by_customer`, so the passing mechanism is only implied by the endpoint.

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 operation: restore a marked-as-deleted receipt for a specific customer account using `id_by_customer`. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `receipts_delete` by saying it brings back a receipt deleted with that tool.

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?

It gives an explicit use case: use when a receipt was deleted via `receipts_delete`. It also provides the prerequisite of obtaining `id_by_customer` from the `/receipts/get` method. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to the correct sibling for the un-confirm-posting case mentioned in the first line.

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