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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the tool is deterministic and stores no data, and imposes an input constraint, which gives useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output structure. The first sentence is dense with domain jargon but contains essential information; the other two add constraints efficiently. No filler.

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 17-parameter tool with no output schema, the description outlines the return format at a high level and covers determinism/no-storage. However, it leaves most parameter semantics unexplained and doesn't fully specify the output structure, so it's only partially complete given the complexity.

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 only 18%, so the description must compensate, but it only offers the general instruction to pass numbers that appear in the close. It does not explain the meaning or role of the 16 optional parameters (voids, payouts, discounts, etc.), leaving their semantics largely undocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Read a restaurant close') and details the exact output shape (Owner desk line, Do this first finding, etc.), so an agent knows this is an analysis/synthesis tool rather than raw data retrieval. With no sibling tools, differentiation isn't needed, but the purpose is clear.

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 states the use case ('to fix before the next shift') and the input sources (POS export, Z report, pasted text), plus the constraint to pass only numbers that appear in the close. It doesn't provide explicit when-not guidance, but no alternatives exist.

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