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

The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It mentions reading from live or snapshot sources, but does not add additional behavioral details like rate limits or side effects, which is acceptable given the annotation.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and uses precise domain terminology. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The description lists the expected data fields (bucket, direction, capital, etc.) and mentions pagination implicitly via the schema's cursor/limit parameters. It does not describe the output format explicitly, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema descriptions already thoroughly explain each parameter (e.g., periodEnd is required for live, defaults for snapshot). The tool description adds little beyond a conceptual 'flow filter' reference, but does not improve on the schema's clarity.

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 states it returns per-entry sales-tax classifications for a period, and emphasizes it is the single feed every tax report reads. It also distinguishes live vs snapshot modes, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explains that it serves as the single feed for tax reports, and clarifies when to use live books (via period filters) versus a snapshot (via snapshotid). It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient for typical use cases.

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