list_receipts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses cent-denominated amounts, negative values for refunds, included fields, line item tags, and pagination behavior (10 per page, skip by 10). This goes far beyond a minimal description.

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 a single dense paragraph with no wasted words; every sentence adds useful operational detail. It front-loads the core purpose and then supplies necessary specifics.

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 that there is no output schema, the description compensates richly by enumerating the response contents, currency, status, line item tags, and pagination mechanics. The tool is fully understandable for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 100%; the schema already explains skip as a pagination offset. The description adds 'increase skip by 10' and mentions the 10-record page size, but this is largely redundant with the schema, so the added value is marginal.

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 'List', the resource 'receipts', and the scope 'for the API key account', distinguishing it from sibling tools that filter by booking/vehicle. It also defines receipts as itemized charges, leaving no 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?

It establishes the context as account-wide listing but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_receipts_by_booking or get_receipts_by_vehicle. The pagination guidance is clear, but no when-not-to-use scenarios are provided.

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