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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that the operation is owner-restricted, that the setting defaults to off, and that a worker whose individual see_costs is off remains unaffected, which is genuinely useful non-obvious behavior. It doesn't mention reversibility of the toggle or what the response confirms, but the output schema covers returns.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core effect before the permission and default caveats. Every sentence adds information; 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 two-parameter mutation with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the permission requirement, default state, and the interaction with per-worker overrides – enough for an agent to call it correctly, with only minor gaps around toggle reversibility.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains what 'enabled' means (show vs hide costs) and grounds 'shop_id' via 'in the shop', but does not address the parameter names, types, or the UUID format explicitly.

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 effect on a specific resource: toggling whether field workers can see job costs, with the four cost categories enumerated. It's clearly distinguishable from shops_setTips or shops_setInvoiceReminders, though it doesn't name any sibling to route away from.

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?

Implies the use case (owner turning cost visibility on/off) and gives the owner-only constraint plus the off-by-default state, but there's no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for finer-grained cost control.

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