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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the owner-only authorization requirement, states that accrual is the default, and explains the differing counting semantics of each mode. It omits whether the change re-computes historical reports or is reversible, which keeps it from a 5.

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, zero filler, with the core action and the owner-only constraint front-loaded before the value definitions. Every sentence earns its place.

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, no-output-schema setting tool, this covers the essential decision space: what it changes, who can change it, the default, and what each option means. Only the shop_id semantics and the effect on already-generated reports are left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the critical parameter: both enum values are defined in plain terms and the default is stated. The shop_id parameter is never mentioned, but its uuid format and name make it largely self-evident.

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+resource: it sets how the sales tax report counts a period. The parenthetical '(owner only)' adds a useful scope qualifier. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby tools like taxes_salesReport, which produces the report rather than configuring its basis, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Pick the one your state files on' gives guidance for choosing between the two enum values, and '(owner only)' signals a permission precondition. However, there is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, no mention of when not to change it, and no note about whether existing reports are affected.

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