cash_register_movements_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the scoping constraint (manual-only movements, excludes receipts/invoice payments), which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination, result ordering, or whether balances are computed. For a list tool with no annotations, the description covers the core scoping but leaves behavioral details unaddressed.

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 concise sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second provides the crucial exclusion and alternative. Every sentence earns its place and the most important differentiator (what it does NOT return) is clearly front-loaded.

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 3-param list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and its scoping. The exclusion of receipts/invoice payments is the key differentiator and it's present. It doesn't address pagination or response format, but for a simple list tool with full schema coverage this is a minor gap. Would be a 5 with a small note on result ordering or limits.

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 all three parameters (to, from, companyId) are documented in the schema. The description adds date-range context ('in a date range') which aligns with from/to params but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 for full schema coverage is 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('List manual cash movements') and clearly scopes what's included (deposits, withdrawals, miscellaneous) and what's excluded (receipts and invoice payments). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling cash_register_ledger, naming it as the alternative for the full picture.

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 explicitly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool ('Receipts and invoice payments are NOT returned here') and directs to the alternative sibling tool cash_register_ledger for the full picture. This is an explicit exclusion plus named alternative, which is the strongest form of guidance.

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