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

Even though annotations already mark the tool as destructive, the description adds important behavioral details: it is irreversible, requires explicit user confirmation, and preserves the record and number while zeroing amounts. This goes meaningfully beyond the structured annotations.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the effect, and the two most critical cautions without any filler. Every clause 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 an irreversible destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what it preserves, that it cannot be undone, and that confirmation is required. It does not specify the response format, but that is less critical here given the clear side effects and existing annotations.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's mention of explicit user confirmation reinforces the confirm parameter, but that information is already in the schema, so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the 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 names the exact verb ('Void'), the resource ('sales receipt'), and the distinguishing effect ('keeping the record and its number but zeroing its amounts'). This clearly separates it from delete_sales_receipt, which would remove the record, and update_sales_receipt, which edits it.

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 implies when to use the tool by explaining that it zeroes amounts while preserving the record, which contrasts with deletion. However, it never explicitly names alternatives like delete_sales_receipt or states when not to use this tool, so the guidance is implied rather than direct.

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