List receipts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context: a deterministic order (newest first) and the pagination contract (feed `next_cursor` back as `cursor`), which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Very tight and front-loaded; the receipt semantics come first, pagination last. The only waste is the redundant 'newest first' stated in two consecutive sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry the return-shape burden; it partially does by implying a `next_cursor` field and newest-first ordering. It still omits what filters exist, whether results span all invoices, and default page size behavior for a four-parameter list endpoint.

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 75% — `limit`, `cursor`, and `invoice` are documented in the schema, but the `kind` enum has no description anywhere. The description echoes the cursor mechanics but never explains that `kind` filters to payments vs refunds or that `invoice` scopes to one invoice, so it fails to close 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?

Specific verb+resource ('List receipts') plus a clarifying scope statement — one entry per fulfilled payment and each confirmed refund. That tells the agent what a receipt is relative to list_payments/list_refunds, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 or when-not guidance, and no mention of the available narrowing filters (`kind`, `invoice`) that would decide between this tool and list_payments/list_refunds. The agent must infer the choice purely from the tool name.

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