List receipts

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the filter capability, which is also evident from the schema, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination behavior, default limit, or response format. It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction exists.

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 conveys the essential purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value.

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?

For a simple list tool with comprehensive schema and annotations, the description is sufficient. It names the filters and implicitly communicates the read-only nature (reinforced by annotations). The lack of an output schema is not penalized per the rules. A slightly more detailed note on pagination or use cases would improve completeness, but it is not critical for this simple tool.

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% (all four parameters documented with descriptions). The description only repeats the filter options already present in the schema and does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Thus, the baseline 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 ('List') and resource ('receipts'), and specifies the filtering options ('by payment_id or refund_id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_payments or list_refunds, which target different resources.

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 implies usage contexts via the filter parameters (e.g., find receipts for a given payment), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no mention of alternatives like list_refunds or list_payments, leaving the choice to the agent based on resource name.

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