Get Receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds that the response includes full details plus attachment names, which is useful payload context, but says nothing about permissions, company scoping, or error behavior.

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?

It is a single short sentence with zero padding, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of a verb, scope, and any routing signal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out. Still, for a tool with two parameters where one is undocumented in the schema, the description should at minimum confirm it fetches a single receipt by id and note the company scoping; neither is present.

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 only 50%: `company` carries a description ("may be omitted with one company") while `receipt_id` is a bare integer. The description mentions neither parameter and gives no hint that the receipt is identified by an integer id or how company scoping interacts with it, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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 sentence names the resource (a single receipt) and hints at payload contents ("all its details and attachment names"), but there is no verb and no explicit contrast with the sibling get_receipts (plural). An agent can infer retrieval-by-id from the name, but the description itself does not do that work.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or alternative is stated. The closest sibling, get_receipts, is never mentioned, so the agent must guess whether to fetch one or list many. Only the singular/plural naming difference implies routing.

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