get_receipts_by_vehicle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds pagination details (10 per page, skip by 10), states amounts are in cents, and notes account-level availability, providing meaningful context. It does not cover error handling or authorization, but for a read-only list tool, the disclosed behaviors are sufficient.

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?

Three short sentences deliver all necessary information: purpose scope, shape reference, currency unit, and pagination. There is no redundancy or filler, and each sentence earns its place.

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 two params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers scope, currency, pagination, and return shape (via pointer to list_receipts). It is slightly dependent on knowing list_receipts' shape, but that sibling is discoverable, making this reasonably complete.

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% and includes descriptions for both vehicleId and skip. The description reinforces the skip/pagination mechanic (already present in the schema) but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('receipts') with a clear qualifier ('for a specific vehicle'). It also references sibling tool 'list_receipts' for shape, which helps distinguish its scoped purpose without ambiguity.

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 clearly states the tool is for listing receipts tied to a specific vehicle, which is a distinct use case from unfiltered list tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance beyond the scope stated.

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