receipts_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It handles this well: it explicitly states the state transition, that issuance makes the receipt read-only, and that fiscal data becomes locked. This directly discloses mutations and consequential irreversible effects. It could add info about required permissions or errors on non-draft receipts, but the core behavioral contract is well covered.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, state transition, and irreversible consequence. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 two-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the transition semantics and the irreversible consequences. The absence of an output schema means the return value isn't specified by structure, but for a state-transition tool the critical info (what happens, what locks) is present. It doesn't address error behavior on already-issued or draft-invalid receipts, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both params ('UUID of the receipt to mark as issued' and 'Company UUID (overrides configured default)'). The description adds no additional param-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies. It doesn't elaborate on the companyId override semantics, but the schema already covers it.

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+resource+action: 'Mark a receipt as issued at the point of sale.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like receipts_get, receipts_update, receipts_delete, receipts_cancel, receipts_refund, receipts_convert_to_invoice by naming the specific state transition (draft→issued).

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 communicates the context (point of sale issuance, draft-to-issued transition) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. With siblings like receipts_cancel, receipts_refund, and invoices_issue existing, explicit exclusions would help, but the draft-to-issued framing implies the precondition clearly.

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