submit_batch_scans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses asynchronous processing, webhook callbacks, and parameter constraints (e.g., items limit). It could mention result retrieval methods but overall is transparent.

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 concise: one introductory sentence and a list of 6 parameters with brief explanations. No unnecessary text, well-structured for quick parsing.

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 no output schema, the description covers all parameters and their semantics, and mentions asynchronous processing and webhook. It does not mention how to retrieve results, but sibling tools exist for that. It is fairly complete for a submission tool.

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 0%, but the description explains all 6 parameters with meaningful constraints and roles (e.g., items must have exactly one source, auto_save auto-creates transactions). This adds significant value beyond 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 clearly states 'Submit multiple receipts for asynchronous batch processing.' It specifies verb, resource, and mode. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'process_receipts_batch', which may have similar functionality.

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 provides context for batch processing and constraints (1-20 items, exactly one source). But it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scan_receipt' or 'process_receipts_batch', nor any exclusions.

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