agent-receipts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable context about what the guide contains (usage examples for specific workflows), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, authentication requirements, or the output format of the guide.

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 consists of two efficiently structured sentences where every clause earns its place. The first sentence defines the tool's function and content scope, while the second provides clear usage timing, with no redundant or wasteful language.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and its role as a discovery helper, the description provides appropriate completeness by explaining what the guide contains and when to invoke it. A minor gap remains in not specifying the output format of the displayed guide.

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?

The input schema contains zero parameters (empty object). According to the baseline rules, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Display' with the resource 'getting-started guide' and explicitly distinguishes this from operational siblings by positioning it as the setup/reference tool. It maps the guide's contents to specific sibling functions (record agent actions, verify receipts, use receipt chains, evaluate with constraints, generate invoices), clearly differentiating it from tools like track_action or verify_receipt.

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?

The description provides explicit temporal guidance ('Call this tool first when setting up Agent Receipts') and situational guidance ('when you need a reference for available tools'), clearly indicating this is an onboarding/discovery tool to be used before or alongside operational tools rather than for actual receipt operations.

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