create_sell_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a sell receipt', which implies a write operation, but it does not disclose side effects such as fiscal data transmission, receipt delivery to the client, or potential irreversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool that creates fiscal documents.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. It contains no unnecessary words and is easily scannable, achieving maximum efficiency.

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?

Despite the rich schema, the description is too minimal for a tool that creates fiscal documents. It omits when to use the tool vs alternatives, what the fiscal implications are, and what the expected outcome or response is. The sole mention of '54-FZ compliance' provides some domain context, but not enough for an agent to confidently invoke this tool in varied scenarios.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with every property and nested field clearly described (e.g., external_id as 'Unique external receipt ID', payments with type mapping). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already fully documents parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Create') and the specific resource ('sell receipt'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_buy_receipt by the word 'sell'. It also adds relevant regulatory context ('for 54-FZ compliance'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the contrast with sibling tools (e.g., create_sell_refund, create_buy_receipt), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any 'use this when selling' or 'use refund instead for returns' guidance, so the agent must infer the context from the tool name alone.

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