receipts_pdf

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds value by disclosing the base64 encoding of the returned payload and the status gate that causes failures. It does not mention size limits or download/auth requirements.

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 short sentences: purpose first, then return format, then precondition. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and there is no 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what comes back (base64 PDF) and the status requirement, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gap: nothing about how the base64 payload should be handled downstream or error behavior when status is wrong.

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% with only two parameters (uuid required, companyId override), both documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Download the PDF for a receipt') and even clarifies the domain term (bon fiscal), so an agent can distinguish it from receipts_get or receipts_email. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling that returns the receipt record rather than the document.

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 precondition 'the receipt must be in issued or invoiced status' is a real usage constraint, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over receipts_get, payments_receipt_pdf, or receipts_email. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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