receipts_tail

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavioral detail: newest-first ordering, the exact receipt fields returned, and the app_id scoping. It does not mention pagination or limit behavior, but that is a minor gap given the simple read-only nature.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core behavior, then adds scoping context in a second short sentence. Every clause adds value, and the output fields are listed compactly without wasted words.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, and the description adequately covers what it returns, how results are ordered, and who it is scoped to. The agent has enough information to call it correctly and understand the response shape.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'app_id' as the scoping identity, but it does not describe the 'limit' parameter's meaning in terms of the number of receipts returned. The tool name and the phrase 'most-recent' hint at it, but the description does not fully carry the parameter-documentation burden.

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 and resource: 'Return your own most-recent tool-call receipts'. It also specifies ordering ('newest first'), output fields, and scope ('scoped to your app_id'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that query other identities or broader history.

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 gives clear context: this is a 'self-audit trail' and is 'never another identity's calls', which tells the agent when to use it and when not to. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the scoping language communicates the main usage boundary.

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