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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by specifying what is deliberately excluded (raw provider payloads, hidden reconciliation notes, credentials, private calculation internals) and by disclosing the 80-row cap plus invoice_rows_total, which are genuine behavioral traits an agent needs.

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?

Content is front-loaded into a dense two-sentence block where the primary payload is stated first and the privacy/exclusion details follow. Slightly long and partly restates the read-only annotation, but each clause carries usable 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?

Covers scope filters, the privacy boundaries, and the invoice_rows cap/total for a zero-required-parameter read tool; an output schema exists so return-value detail is not required. Gaps are minor — no freshness/timing or pagination note for the non-invoice sections.

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 both parameters are documented with their ISO 4217 pattern, example values, and 'omit for all/whole workspace' semantics. The description adds no formatting, syntax, or interaction detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (transaction-log summary) and enumerates exactly what it contains: open-invoice unrealised FX rows, settled-invoice realised FX rows, bank/cash rows, counts, provenance, plus the invoice_rows table. Tied to a named UI surface (Explain > Detailed Transaction Logs), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_fx_exposure or get_cash_position without opening a 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?

Usage is implied by the 'Explain > Detailed Transaction Logs' framing and the mention that the in-app Scout assistant reads invoice_rows, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative to route against. Adequate but leaves selection to inference.

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