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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat these. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., auth, rate limits), but it does not contradict the annotations. Adequate given the existing 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 two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and avoids redundancy. It efficiently covers purpose, usage, and alternatives without unnecessary detail.

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 an output schema exists (context signal), the description does not need to explain return values. It provides the purpose, when to use, and a clear alternative tool, which is sufficient context for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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% with each of the 7 parameters having its own description. The tool description reinforces the date-range, per-booth filtering, payment status, and payment channel parameters but adds no new information beyond what the schema already provides. 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 clearly states that the tool lists photo sessions with totals, and explicitly distinguishes it from get_revenue_summary by focusing on session counts rather than money totals. The verb 'List' and resource 'photo sessions' are unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to call the tool ('when the operator asks how busy a booth has been, how many sessions ran in a period, or wants to inspect individual sessions') and when not to ('For money totals... use get_revenue_summary instead'). No ambiguity.

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