Transactions: get all receipts assigned to a specific transaction

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

The description reiterates read-only and non-destructive behavior, which is already provided via annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). It adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the endpoint method (POST) and confirming it fetches data.

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 very concise: one line with a visual indicator, a bold statement of purpose, a brief sentence, and a usage hint. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted words.

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's simplicity, full schema coverage, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete. It covers the main input, a prerequisite, and read-only nature. It could optionally describe the output (list of receipts) but is adequate.

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 input schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions 'transaction_id_by_customer' but does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's field 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 'get all receipts assigned to a specific transaction', specifying the verb 'get' and resource 'receipts assigned to a transaction'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'transactions_assign_receipt' and '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 tells when to use this tool: after obtaining the transaction's id_by_customer via '/transactions/get method'. It provides a prerequisite but does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives for similar lookups.

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