Get Receipts (Withdrawals)

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

The description indicates a GET endpoint implying a read-only operation, and 'get list' suggests no side effects. However, with no annotations, it could be more explicit about safety (e.g., no destructive actions). Does not detail pagination, ordering, or response format.

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?

Description is two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and endpoint.

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 tool with one required parameter, the description is fairly complete. It specifies the resource type (withdrawal receipts), scope (product group), and endpoint. Missing details like response structure or pagination, but not critical for selection.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter 'pg' described as 'Product group code'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves a list of withdrawal receipts for a product group, using specific terms like 'sales/disposals of marking codes'. It distinguishes the tool's function from siblings like chz_doc_list, which likely deals with other document types, though not 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like chz_doc_list or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, lacking context on prerequisites or exclusion scenarios.

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