Receipts: restore deleted receipt by id_by_customer

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context: 'WRITE', 'reverts state', 'reversible', and explains it restores a deleted receipt, aligning with 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 redundant phrasing ('reverts state — Reverts a prior state change... Reversible'). It could be more concise while maintaining 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?

For a simple restore tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the action, reversal nature, and how to obtain the identifier. Lacks discussion of error scenarios but is sufficiently complete for the complexity.

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% with a clear description for the only parameter (api_key). The description does not add parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 action ('restore'), the resource ('deleted receipt'), and the identifier ('id_by_customer'). It distinguishes from the inverse sibling receipts_delete_id_by_customer by specifying it reverts a prior state change.

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 implies usage context ('Reverts a prior state change', 'Reversible') and tells how to get id_by_customer via /receipts/get, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor when not to use it (e.g., if receipt is not deleted).

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