create_sales_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a write operation and hints at a multi-step process, but does not detail permissions, idempotency, side effects, or return value specifics (though output schema exists). The context added about the two-step workflow is helpful 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?

Two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides crucial workflow context. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 description covers the purpose and the two-step workflow involving 'create_sales_receipt_line'. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., customer must exist) or error conditions. With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, it is mostly complete but could be slightly richer.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters described in the schema). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('sales receipt (customer payment) record'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'create_sales_receipt_line' by noting that the line tool is for settling documents against the receipt.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('to create the receipt itself') and directs the agent to use 'create_sales_receipt_line' for the next step. This provides context and an alternative, though it does not list exclusions or when not to use it.

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