list_warehouse_receipts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses input format, defaults, and filter options, but omits details like read-only nature, pagination, or return limits. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured with a concise purpose statement followed by an Args section. It is efficient without redundant text, though slightly verbose with the return field list.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately explains return values and how to use results with get_receipt_detail. It covers all parameters and defaults, though it could mention pagination or sorting for 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: start_date and end_date format, document_type options ('all', 'warehouse', 'gas', 'carwash'), and account as optional. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 lists in-warehouse purchase receipts for a date range, specifies returned fields (date, warehouse name, total, item count, barcode), and hints at relationship with get_receipt_detail. It effectively communicates the core function.

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 indicates when to use the tool (listing receipts) and directs to use barcode with get_receipt_detail for full items. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_all_receipt_details or when not to use this tool, leaving room for confusion.

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