Get a single receipt

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as return structure, error handling, or access requirements, so it does not go beyond what annotations provide.

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 short but redundant: the first sentence 'Get a single receipt.' is essentially repeated by 'Get a single receipt by ID.' in the second sentence. The endpoint line adds some useful context, but the duplication wastes space and weakens clarity.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is mostly adequate. It includes the endpoint path, which is helpful, but lacks any context about how this receipt retrieval relates to other receipt operations or what the caller can do with the result.

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%, with both parameters (id and administration) already documented clearly. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the endpoint path hint, so the schema carries the semantic burden; this meets the baseline for full coverage.

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 verb 'get' and resource 'single receipt', so an agent knows exactly what operation this performs. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling get_* tools beyond the resource name, and it largely repeats the title.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus list_receipts, create_receipt, or update_receipt. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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