get_receipts_by_booking

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses pagination (10 per page, skip), currency units (cents), and that the return shape matches list_receipts. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the raw schema.

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 three sentences each adding valuable info: scope, return shape, currency, and pagination. No redundant or filler 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the filtering logic, return shape, units, and pagination, leaving no critical gaps for the agent to resolve.

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 schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (bookingId and skip) with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal new semantics about parameters—it only restates the pagination concept that is already in the schema. Thus 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's function: 'List receipts for a specific booking'. It specifies the resource (receipts) and the scope (a specific booking), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning the booking filter and referencing list_receipts.

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 clear context (receipts for a specific booking, available to the API key account) and references the sibling list_receipts for shape, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with get_receipts_by_vehicle, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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