Transactions: get all receipts assigned to a specific transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description reinforces this with '🟢 READ-ONLY' and 'Makes no changes to the accounting records,' which adds a human-friendly emphasis. It also explains the semantic behavior (what receipts are returned) and gives a concrete use case. While it doesn't discuss auth or rate limits, the annotation coverage is strong, so a 4 is warranted.

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 succinct and well-structured. It opens with the read-only warning, then the core purpose, then the parameter source, then a usage example, and finally the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. The structure is logical 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 list operation with one required and one optional parameter, and given that an output schema exists (so return format is documented elsewhere), the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, how to get the required id, and the alternative tool for the opposite direction. No important contextual information is missing.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining where `transaction_id_by_customer` comes from ('You can get the "id_by_customer" by using the "/transactions/get method" first.'), which is useful for correct invocation. This goes beyond the schema's simple type description, so a 4 is appropriate.

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: 'Get all receipts assigned to a specific transaction for a specified customer account by id_by_customer.' It names the specific resource (receipts) and scope (assigned to a transaction), and even mentions the key parameter. It also explicitly names the sibling tool for the opposite direction, distinguishing it from `receipts_list_assigned_transactions`.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use to see which receipts are linked to a given bank transaction, for example to check whether a payment has its invoice attached.' It also points to the alternative for the reverse direction ('For the opposite direction, use receipts_list_assigned_transactions') and explains how to obtain the required `id_by_customer` via `/transactions/get`. This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool.

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