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

Goes beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations by disclosing pagination behavior (paging.next_offset set when rows remain) and scoping permissions (Reports module plus per-report view permission). Doesn't detail rate limits or error behavior for an openWorld tool.

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?

Front-loads purpose and return shape, then pagination, then parameter guidance efficiently in a few dense sentences. The trailing list of typical inputs is slightly long but earns its place given the dynamic params object.

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 paginated, permission-gated read tool with a nested freeform params object and full schema coverage, the definition covers return shape, pagination, permissions, and parameter sourcing. Missing only error/failure handling and explicit when-not guidance.

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 four parameters including limit/offset and params. The description reinforces the params contents (start_date, end_date, sale_type, location_ids, etc.) but adds little syntax beyond what's in the schema. 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?

States a specific verb ('Run'), resource ('one of the store's reports'), and the return shape (title, summary, detail rows). It clearly points to phppos_list_reports as the source of report keys, distinguishing it from the sibling list tool.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to phppos_list_reports for valid report keys and inputs, and lists typical report examples. It explains permission requirements but doesn't state when-not to use it or offer competing alternatives beyond the list tool.

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