receipts_pdf

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (base64-encoded binary data) and the status precondition, which is genuinely useful context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't discuss whether this requires specific permissions, file size limits, or what happens if the receipt is in an unsupported status (error vs empty response).

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose, return format, and the single important precondition. No wasted words. Slightly missing was explicit mention of what the tool returns on failure, but overall it's efficient and well-organized.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description does reasonable work: it specifies return format, naming of the resource, and the required status precondition. However, for a data retrieval tool with zero annotations, it could say more about error conditions, whether the companyId parameter affects which receipt is returned, or other behavioral details. The two-parameter surface is simple enough that this is adequate but not complete.

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%, with uuid described as 'UUID of the receipt' and companyId as 'Company UUID (overrides configured default)'. The description adds minimal parameter-level insight beyond the schema — the status precondition is a domain constraint rather than parameter syntax. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 the verb (Download), resource (PDF for a receipt), and return format (base64-encoded PDF binary data). It distinguishes from siblings like receipts_get (which presumably returns structured data) and invoices_pdf by being receipt-specific. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other document download tools.

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 provides a clear precondition: the receipt must be in 'issued or invoiced' status, which is a useful usage boundary. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool beyond the status constraint, leaving some ambiguity about differentiation from related tools like receipts_get or invoices_pdf.

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