cash_register_movements_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral content beyond that: the result set is deliberately partial, excluding receipts and invoice payments. It doesn't mention pagination, ordering, or result shape, which keeps it from a 5.

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, zero filler. The positive scope comes first and the exclusion/alternative routing follows immediately, so the key selection signal is 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 read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers scope and the main look-alike alternative. It stops short of describing what a movement record contains or how results are ordered, which would help an agent interpret output.

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% and all three parameters (from, to, companyId) are self-documented including defaults, so the baseline applies. The description only reinforces that filtering is by date range; it adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('List manual cash movements') and enumerates the covered subtypes (deposits, withdrawals, miscellaneous) with a date-range scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling cash_register_ledger, so an agent can choose between them without opening either 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 says what is NOT returned (receipts and invoice payments) and names the alternative (cash_register_ledger) for 'the full picture.' This is a clear when-to-use / when-not-to-use rule with the alternative tool named inline.

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