List X and Z reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes extra substance by describing the report contents returned. It does not mention pagination behavior or default caps, but with annotations this is above the required bar.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what is listed, how to filter, and where to go for alternatives. The core purpose is front-loaded before the routing hint.

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 filtered list with a rich 9-parameter schema and no output schema, the description supplies identity, content of results, filter axes and sibling routing. Only the return shape and paging behavior are left implicit, which the schema partly covers.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented with patterns, defaults and constraints. The description's mention of the filterable dimensions (period, shift, cash register, serial, report type) mirrors the schema without adding format or semantics beyond it, 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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (X-reports and Z-reports), and goes further by defining each type ('interim, non-fiscal' vs 'end of shift') and the payload returned (receipt counts, cash balance, totals per payment form). An agent can tell it apart from get_report and the shift/receipt siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to get_report for tax breakdowns or printable text, which is a clean alternative-selection rule. It also lists the filter dimensions, giving context for when this tool applies. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. single-report retrieval), so a 4 rather than a 5.

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