receipts_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'complete details' including calculated totals, which adds some value. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation (safe to call repeatedly), what happens if the uuid doesn't exist (error behavior), or any companyId scoping implications. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a partial gap.

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 a single, compact sentence that communicates the tool's purpose and enumerates the content categories it returns. No filler, no repetition of the name/title, efficient and front-loaded with the key verb-resource pair.

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 single-record retrieval tool with two well-documented parameters, this description is adequate. The tool's complexity is low, the schema covers parameters fully, and no output schema exists to require return-format documentation. The description covers what fields/data categories are returned, which is sufficient for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. It doesn't discuss authorization/permissions, but retrieval tools of this type typically don't need that depth for selection purposes.

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 (uuid as receipt identifier, companyId as optional override). The description adds the notion of 'specific receipt' which reinforces the single-record intent of uuid but doesn't add format, scope, or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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 'Get complete details for a specific receipt' with a specific verb (get) and resource (receipt/bon fiscal). It enumerates what's included (line items, payment breakdown, fiscal data, calculated totals), which distinguishes it from siblings like receipts_list (list orientation) and receipts_update/delete (mutations).

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 implies this is the detail/retrieval tool for a single receipt, contrasted with receipts_list for collections. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus receipts_get alternatives, nor does it note any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., need for a uuid). The name and sibling structure make intent reasonably clear but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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