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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, destructive, and idempotent hints. The description adds valuable context by specifying the prerequisite of an open caja shift and the disabled demo status ([demo: deshabilitada]). It does not contradict the annotations and enriches the agent's understanding of when the tool is functional.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose, includes the key condition (open shift), and lists the supported movement types. The demo-disabled prefix adds important operational context without bloating the text. No unnecessary words.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the prerequisite (open caja shift), and the valid movement types. It does not describe error conditions (e.g., behavior when no shift is open) or return values, but given the tool's simplicity and the strong annotations, this is a minor gap.

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 input schema fully documents all three parameters (tipo, monto, descripcion) with types, enums, and constraints. The description itself does not add extra parameter-specific semantics beyond listing the movement types already present in the enum, so the baseline of 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 starts with the verb 'Records' and clearly identifies the resource: a cash movement tied to the open caja shift. It further enumerates the specific movement types (income, expense, withdrawal, tax, payroll), making the scope unambiguous and distinguishing it from generic movement tools like 'register_movement'.

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 usage when a caja shift is open, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions (e.g., when no open shift exists or when to use 'register_movement'). The guidance is limited to the condition of an open shift, which is useful but not comprehensive.

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