receipts_tail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the scope restriction (scoped to app_id, never another identity's calls) and the outcome taxonomy (ok/denied/rate_limited/error), which is useful. It does not mention pagination behavior or rate limits on the tool itself, but for a read-only receipt tail, the key behaviors are disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and return fields, and the second adds essential scoping context. Every clause adds value; nothing is redundant or irrelevant.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (2 params, no output schema). The description covers the key context: what is returned, the ordering, and the scope. It does not explain pagination or error handling, but for a tail-style read tool, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly in most cases.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the app_id parameter by stating the scope is 'Scoped to your app_id' and reinforces the 'self-audit' meaning. The 'limit' parameter is not directly described, though the phrase 'most-recent' and the default value in the schema imply it controls the number of returned receipts. Partial compensation for a low-coverage 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('your own most-recent tool-call receipts') with a defined output shape ('ts, tool, outcome (ok/denied/rate_limited/error), detail'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing self-scoping ('never another identity's calls') and the self-audit nature.

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 clear context for when to use the tool—as a self-audit trail for checking one's own recent tool calls. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scoping instruction implies it is inappropriate for viewing other identities' call history.

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