Transactions: get all receipts assigned to a specific transaction

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description repeats the read-only safety promise. It adds context about the endpoint and a prerequisite, but does not disclose deeper behavioral details such as auth requirements, rate limits, or response behavior beyond what the annotations and output schema already cover.

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 with the read-only label and the key use case, and it is reasonably compact. There is some redundancy between the bolded repeated phrase and the following sentence, but overall it is well structured and easy to scan.

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 rich annotations, a full input schema, and an output schema, the description covers the important context an agent needs: the use case, the prerequisite for id_by_customer, the reverse-direction alternative, and the endpoint. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds useful meaning for transaction_id_by_customer by explaining its source and how to retrieve it first. It does not add detail for confirmed_only, but that parameter is already well covered by the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'get all receipts assigned to a specific transaction' and clarifies the exact scope. It also names the reverse-direction sibling, receipts_list_assigned_transactions, so it is easy to distinguish from related transaction/receipt tools.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: to see which receipts are linked to a bank transaction, e.g. checking whether a payment has its invoice attached. It also tells the agent to use receipts_list_assigned_transactions for the opposite direction and explains how to obtain id_by_customer via the /transactions/get method first.

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