receipts_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the useful domain context that receipts are POS transactions convertible to invoices, but says nothing about pagination behavior or default result volume despite exposing page/limit params.

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 tight sentences: capability and scope first, domain explanation second. Nothing is redundant with the annotations or schema, and nothing extraneous is present.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the description supplies the necessary purpose and domain framing. The only gap is pagination/result-size expectations, which the schema mostly implies via page and limit.

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 every parameter (including page/limit defaults and status enum) is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description's list of filter axes (status, date range, client, search) mirrors rather than extends 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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('List receipts (bonuri fiscale)') plus its scope ('for the selected company'), and the second sentence explains what a receipt is. However, it never contrasts itself with siblings such as receipts_get or receipts_convert_to_invoice, so the agent must infer the list-vs-get distinction from the names alone.

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?

Optional filtering dimensions are enumerated, which implies the intended usage (browse/filter receipts), but the description never states when to prefer this tool over receipts_get, invoices_list, or receipts_convert_to_invoice, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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