get_all_receipt_details

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

The description reveals it fetches a receipt list then retrieves full details for each, indicating multiple internal calls. However, it omits potential side effects, rate limits, pagination behavior, or performance implications. Without annotations, more behavioral disclosure is needed.

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 lean (5 lines), front-loaded with the primary purpose, and structured with clear argument descriptions. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 an output schema (unknown content) but the description explains the two-step process. However, it does not mention if the operation could be long-running or hit limits. Given the batch nature, a note on scalability would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by specifying format (M/DD/YYYY), defaults (90 days ago / today), and optionality for each parameter. The account parameter mention 'uses default' is slightly vague but acceptable.

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 tool gets 'full itemized details for ALL warehouse receipts in a date range', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_receipt_detail' (single) and 'list_warehouse_receipts' (list only) by combining listing and details retrieval.

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 use for batch full detail retrieval but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to. Sibling names provide context, but the description lacks direct guidance on trade-offs.

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