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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuine behavioral context: an auth requirement ('Cotlet API key with access to this app'), a one-location-per-call scope, and reconciliation semantics ('sales by type add up to total_sales, and payments add up to the same total'). The reconciliation note is valuable non-obvious information an agent could use to validate results.

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 core content is front-loaded, but the report contents are listed twice in near-identical phrasing ('sales by type, payment methods, membership sales, returns and deposits' repeated in the second sentence). That redundancy wastes space and dilutes the structure despite the otherwise efficient length.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by enumerating the report sections plus the total-sum relationship. It also covers auth and per-call scope. Only a minor gap remains: it doesn't mention whether the default location or date handling has any edge cases, but it is largely complete for a 2-param read tool.

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 both 'date' and 'location_id' (including the default). The description's 'Reads one location per call' reinforces the location_id scoping but adds no new format or value syntax beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a precise verb+resource (returns the Register Summary) and scopes it to 'one location for one business day,' enumerating the report contents. An agent can tell this is an aggregate end-of-day report distinct from transactional siblings like meevo_list_appointments or meevo_get_client.

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 conveys the scope ('one location per call') and a data prerequisite (Cotlet API key with app access), but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. Usage is implied rather than stated, with no exclusions or competing report tool called out.

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