close_sale_receipt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Close a sale receipt' without explaining whether the operation is reversible, changes the receipt status, marks it finalized, or requires special permissions. It does not contradict annotations because no annotations exist.

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?

The description is one short sentence with no wasted words and is appropriately front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 state-changing operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what closing a sale receipt entails, any constraints on the receipt's current state, or what the caller should expect afterward. The single-parameter schema reduces complexity, but the absence of lifecycle context leaves a significant gap.

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%, and the description does not mention the id parameter at all. The parameter is somewhat self-explanatory from its name and type, but the description adds no semantic value about which sale receipt to close or how the id is used.

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 states a specific action ('Close') and a specific resource ('a sale receipt'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_sale_receipt, update_sale_receipt, get_sale_receipt, and list_sale_receipts. It is not tautological and gives a reasonable sense of the operation's intent, though 'close' is not elaborated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_sale_receipt, or whether it is only appropriate for open receipts. The description gives no context about prerequisites, allowed states, or when closing should be invoked.

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