receipts_create

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

Annotations already declare the tool is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world, non-idempotent create operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the receipt starts in draft status, can later be issued and converted, and a default receipt series is auto-assigned when no series ID is supplied.

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 core action and status, followed by concise lifecycle and default-series context. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.

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 24-parameter schema with full description coverage and existing annotations, the description supplies the key operational context: draft status, lifecycle transitions, and default series assignment. It does not describe return values or permissions, but those gaps are minor because no output schema exists and the schema covers parameter semantics.

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 the 24 parameters. The description adds only a small amount of meaning by clarifying that the default receipt series is used if neither seriesId nor documentSeriesId is provided, which the schema also covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Create a new receipt (bon fiscal) in draft status.' It also distinguishes the draft-creation step from later lifecycle actions by noting that the receipt 'Can later be issued and converted to invoices.' It stops short of explicitly naming sibling tools, but the purpose is clear.

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 lifecycle context implies when to use this tool: to create a draft receipt before issuing or converting it. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings like receipts_issue or receipts_convert_to_invoice, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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