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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does more than most: it discloses the permission requirement, the default value, and downstream behavior ('A tip is paid with the invoice, never counts toward the invoice total, and shows in tips.report'). It doesn't say whether disabling affects tips already attached to existing invoices, which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core action and permission scope, followed by the behavioral consequences. Each clause adds information an agent needs.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers authorization, default state, effect on invoice totals, and where results surface. The only omission is whether the toggle is retroactive for existing invoices, a minor gap for a settings toggle.

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, and it largely does: 'on or off' maps unambiguously to the boolean `enabled` param, and 'on this shop's ... page' maps to `shop_id`. It doesn't spell out the parameter names or the UUID format, but the semantic mapping is clear enough to call the tool correctly.

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource combination ('Turn tips on or off on this shop's invoice pay page') and immediately delimits scope with '(owner only)'. This makes it easy to distinguish from the sibling tips_report, which only reads tip data rather than toggling the feature.

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 prerequisite condition (owner-only) and the default state ('Off by default'), which tells the agent when the tool is relevant and who can call it. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or exclusion, but for a settings toggle the context is clear.

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