List shifts

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses pagination behavior (cursor, fetch_all capped at 20 pages) and error response handling. Does not mention rate limits or auth, but as a read-only list, destructive behavior is not a concern.

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?

Concise and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence serves a purpose: endpoint, pagination, business context, reliability, error handling. No redundancy.

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?

No output schema, but description enumerates expected fields (opened_at, etc.) and mentions pagination and error behavior. Covers essential aspects for a list tool, though could note permissions or response format more explicitly.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining cursor pagination and the fetch_all cap of 20 pages, which is not in the schema. Parameter descriptions in schema are adequate, so description enhances understanding.

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 the tool lists shifts from Loyverse via GET /shifts, specifies it's for POS cash register shifts with key fields, and differentiates from sibling list tools by naming the entity.

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?

Provides context on reliability (verified live) and error handling (400 returns verbatim error). Lacks explicit comparison to get_shift for single shifts, but the guidance on pagination and retry is helpful.

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