List shifts

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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish that this is a safe read operation, so the description only needs to add context, and it does by naming the returned cash amounts and reconciliation purpose. It does not add richer behavioral detail such as pagination, ordering, or scoping behavior, so it stays at a mid score.

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 short sentences with no filler. It leads with the core action and resource, then adds a practical use case, so 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 read-only list tool with no required parameters, this is nearly sufficient: the annotations cover safety and the description states what the resulting shift data contains. However, it omits any mention of the limit parameter or store_ids, and with no output schema and 50% schema coverage, an agent still needs to infer some call semantics.

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 only 50%, with limit and store_ids lacking any schema descriptions, and the tool description does not explain those parameters. The phrase 'reconcile a day's cash drawer' only weakly implies date filtering, but the description adds no real meaning beyond the schema's own created_at_min/max labels.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('till shifts'), and the key data returned ('opening and closing cash amounts'). It is clearly distinct from get_shift in that it lists many shifts; however, it does not explicitly name the alternative for retrieving a single shift.

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 sentence 'Use this to reconcile a day's cash drawer' gives a concrete use case and context for when to reach for this tool. It does not mention exclusions or explicitly compare against sibling get_shift, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.

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