Create receipt

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond mentioning 'standalone' and the supported types. No additional side effects or requirements (like email sending) are disclosed, but with annotations present, a score of 3 is reasonable.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or vague wording. Every clause contributes meaningful information, achieving maximum conciseness while remaining clear.

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 10 parameters and a rich schema that fully documents them, plus annotations. The description provides a brief overview that is adequate given the schema's depth. However, it omits any reference to related tools or prerequisites (e.g., the need for payment_id or refund_id), so it is not fully complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with rich per-field descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions 'items, VAT codes, and customer contacts' as a high-level summary, which adds modest value but does not improve on the schema's detailed documentation.

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 identifies the action ('Create'), the resource ('standalone fiscal receipt'), and the context (54-FZ). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_payment or create_refund by focusing specifically on receipt generation, which is a distinct operation.

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 clear context by noting it supports both payment and refund receipts, implying when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios (e.g., when to use create_refund instead of create_receipt for refunds), so it misses the top tier.

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