Offline mode status

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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable domain context by citing Checkbox's 36-hour and 168-hour offline limits and clarifying that durations are passed through as returned by the API, helping the agent interpret results. It does not mention rate limits or auth needs, but the annotations carry the safety profile well.

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 a compact paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then adds domain limits and a note on duration formatting. Every sentence contributes, though the final sentence about durations is slightly tangential and could be trimmed.

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?

With annotations covering the safety and idempotency profile and the schema fully documenting parameters, the description completes the picture by stating what is returned (codes, sufficiency, sessions, time) and the relevant business constraints. No output schema is needed, and nothing an agent requires to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so both from_date and to_date are fully documented in the schema with format and timezone examples. The description mentions an optional period but adds no additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Reports') and resource ('offline mode status') and enumerates exactly what is returned: available offline fiscal codes, sufficiency, offline sessions, and total offline time. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_current_shift or get_cash_register, which cover different domains.

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 implies usage by stating the optional period filter, which tells an agent it can query without dates for a full status or with dates for a bounded window. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other status tools or when-not to call it, keeping it below a 5.

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