cash_register_ledger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose the aggregation structure (day buckets with opening/closing balances) and the 366-day cap, which is meaningful. However, it doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, whether companyId scoping affects results, or the default date behaviors beyond what the schema already states. It adds the ledger-bucket structure context but could disclose more about return shape given no output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structural detail and a constraint. Every sentence earns its place—no filler, no repetition of schema fields. Highly efficient.

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 ledger listing tool with 100% schema coverage and zero required params, the description covers purpose, content structure, and range cap. It lacks explicit statement of return format (each day bucket shape is hinted but not fully specified), and with no output schema this could matter. However, the description is reasonably complete for a data-retrieval tool; only minor gaps remain around exact response structure and relationship to sibling tools.

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%—all three params (to, from, companyId) have descriptions including defaults. The description adds the 366-day cap constraint which is relevant to the from/to range, but it doesn't elaborate on date format details or interaction between defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter meaning and the description adds modest supplementary context.

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+resource: 'Daily cash ledger across the requested date range.' It details exactly what each day bucket contains (opening balance, chronological entries, totals, closing balance). Among siblings, cash_register_balance and cash_register_movements_list are related but distinct—this tool aggregates into a structured daily ledger, which the description conveys clearly.

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 implicitly conveys usage (viewing a daily ledger for a date range), and the 366-day cap is a useful constraint. However, it does not explicitly distinguish when to use this versus cash_register_balance (single balance) or cash_register_movements_list (raw movements), and it gives no exclusions or prerequisites. The 'Range capped at 366 days' gives partial context but no explicit alternatives.

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