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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the time semantics for paid_at and the period versus accepted_at, the exclusion of certain settlement types, and the CSV formula-escaping behavior. It does not cover authentication or return-cardinality limits, but the added behavioral detail is substantial.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds three tightly scoped sentences covering time semantics, exclusions, and CSV escaping. Every sentence carries information, with only minor density in the time-semantics sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value explanation. It does so by describing line items with machine-verification receipts, the paid_at/accepted_at semantics, and exclusion rules, which is enough for an agent to interpret the response. It leaves some uncertainty about response size, pagination, or receipt structure, but the core is well covered.

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%, with each of the four parameters fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, though its notes on paid_at and accepted_at describe output fields rather than inputs.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Return an account's recorded supplier transfers for a period') and adds a clear scope ('each line with its machine-verification receipt'). It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the read-only statement purpose is distinguishable from procurement_account_create or procurement_contract_run.

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 implies when to use it (to obtain a statement of recorded supplier transfers for a period) and scopes what is excluded (prepayments awaiting payout, internal settlements without a transfer), but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over an alternative or names any sibling as a substitute.

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