Get a list of receipts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about pagination and that it retrieves all receipts, but does not disclose details like default page size, result order, or potential performance implications. No contradiction with annotations.

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 contains three sentences, but the first sentence 'Get a list of receipts.' is a redundant restatement of the title. The second sentence provides the substantive information, and the third gives an API endpoint reference. Slightly bloated for the content delivered.

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 list operation with no required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. It states the overall behavior and pagination, and annotations cover safety. It does not describe the return structure, but since there is no output schema, a brief note on response format would improve completeness, though it is not critical.

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%, so all parameters already have meaningful documentation in the schema itself. The description mentions 'paginated' which aligns with the 'page' parameter but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Get a paginated list'), the resource ('receipts (bonnetjes)'), and the scope ('for this administration'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_receipt, create_receipt, and update_receipt by being the list operation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_receipt or filtered list endpoints. The description does not mention when not to use it or direct the agent to a sibling for single-item retrieval. Usage context is only implicit in the word 'list'.

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