list_cash_events

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by specifying the result cap (`limit`, default 50, max 500) and the permission requirement (MERCHANT_R). It also qualifies the result as 'recent', setting expectations about the time scope. These are meaningful additions that help the agent understand the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence fronts the purpose and the second adds constraints and permission. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the tool has a single simple parameter, the description covers the essential elements: what it returns, the parameter behavior, the permission, and the read-only nature. The only minor gaps are the lack of a precise definition for 'recent' (time window) and no mention of ordering, but for this simple list tool it is largely complete.

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?

The schema has only one parameter, `limit`, with no description (0% coverage). The description explains the parameter clearly by stating 'Capped at `limit` (default 50, max 500)', fully compensating for the schema's lack of detail. Since `limit` is the only parameter, the description provides complete parameter semantics.

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 'Return recent cash-drawer events' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates event types (paid in/out, no-sale, deposits). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_payments or list_refunds, which focus on different transaction types.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool (when querying cash-drawer events), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. The 'Requires MERCHANT_R' line is a permission note, not a usage guideline. Thus, usage is implied rather than explicitly differentiated from siblings.

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