Retrieve a 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 the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note on not-found behavior, error handling, or what a receipt object contains.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded scope or qualifier to make the brevity useful.

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 tool with full annotation coverage and a fully described schema, less is required, but there is still no mention of what is returned, whether receipts are grouped under invoices/payments, or what happens on a missing id. With no output schema, the description leaves an agent guessing.

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?

Only one parameter (id) exists, and the schema describes it at 100% coverage, so the schema carries the documentation burden entirely. The description neither clarifies the id format (receipt id vs. related object id) nor adds anything, but baseline 3 applies given full schema 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 is "Retrieve a receipt" – a verbatim restatement of the tool name and title, with no elaboration. It conveys a verb and resource but nothing that distinguishes it from siblings like list_receipts or retrieve_payment.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus list_receipts (for listing) or retrieve_payment/retrieve_invoice (for related lookups). The only implied usage comes from the name itself, not from any guidance in the description.

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