receipts_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. The description mentions 'selected company' implying a default company context with optional companyId override, and states receipts 'can be converted to invoices' as a behavioral capability. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, response format, or the fact that creating/issuing/canceling receipts would be handled by other sibling tools. For a read/list operation with zero annotation coverage, it should disclose more behavioral context.

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 well-structured sentence that introduces the tool's purpose, lists filtering capabilities, and adds one useful behavioral note (convertible to invoices). It's efficient and front-loaded with the primary purpose. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 has 8 parameters with full schema coverage, making it moderately complex. There's no output schema, so the description somewhat should hint at return content. The description covers filtering options and conversion capability but doesn't indicate what fields are returned (receipt number, amounts, client info) or pagination defaults beyond what's in the schema. For a list tool with no output schema, this is adequate but could be more complete about the returned data shape.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters with clear descriptions for each (date range, page, limit, search, status enum, clientId, companyId). The description adds a bit beyond schema by framing filters ('status, date range, client, search term') and noting the company context concept ('selected company' vs 'overrides configured default' in schema). But the schema already carries the semantic weight, so the description adds marginal value.

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 this tool lists receipts (bonuri fiscale) for a selected company with filtering options. It distinguishes its purpose from invoice listing tools by specifying receipts as point-of-sale transactions, which is a distinct resource type. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like receipts_get or receipts_create, the action 'list' with filter context makes the purpose 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 description states it lists receipts for the selected company with optional filtering, implying usage when one needs to retrieve receipt records. It notes receipts can be converted to invoices, which suggests a context for use. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like receipts_get (single receipt retrieval) or invoices_list (if the user wants invoices instead), leaving the decision partially implicit.

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