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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes the meaningful temporal scoping — 'right now' and 'today's business day' — which is not in the annotations, but it says nothing about freshness lag, business-day cutoff definition, or how empty states appear.

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?

A single sentence with the time scope front-loaded and no redundant wording. The enumeration is dense but every item is a distinct returned field, so it earns its length rather than padding it.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description's enumeration of returned metrics is the right form of completeness — the agent knows what it will get. Only the absence of guidance on the business-day boundary and data freshness keeps it from a 5.

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 both parameters (cafe, branch) are documented in the schema, including the pointer to list_my_cafes. The description adds nothing about how café or branch scope changes the returned figures, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains — orders waiting, in preparation, ready to collect, longest-waiting order, tables with open orders, unpaid orders, and sales so far today — so the resource and its scope are unambiguous. The verb is only implied and no sibling is named for contrast, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Right now, for today's business day' implies a live operational check rather than a historical or analytical query, which implicitly separates it from siblings like get_sales_summary or list_orders. However, it never states when to prefer this over those alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the routing to inference.

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