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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the description is free to add behavior beyond that: results are ordered newest-first and tables are deliberately omitted, meaning the payload is a lightweight summary. It doesn't mention pagination behaviour even though a limit param exists, which keeps it short of 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?

One sentence, no filler, with the resource and ordering front-loaded before the payload caveat. Every clause carries information.

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 simple, fully-annotated list tool with a fully documented single parameter and no output schema, the description covers resource, scope, ordering, and payload shape. A note on pagination or total counts would close the remaining gap.

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% and the single limit parameter (default 20, max 50) is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level 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+resource (list breakdowns), the scope (the account's), the ordering (newest first), and a distinguishing payload property (without their tables). That implicitly separates it from get_breakdown, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'without their tables' hints that get_breakdown is the alternative when table data is needed, but the description never states when to choose this tool or any exclusions. No explicit routing guidance is given.

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