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

The description goes well beyond the minimal annotations (openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It discloses exactly how entries are posted (Dr/Cr per period), the straight-line allocation with rounding remainder on the final period, and the impact on cash-basis reports. This is rich behavioral context that materially assists the agent in understanding side effects.

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 three sentences, tightly packed with relevant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by detailed mechanics and a practical note about cash-basis. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers behavior, parameter sourcing, allocation logic, and report impact. It does not need to describe return values since an output schema exists, and it references the appropriate sibling tool for account lookup.

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 only 44%, so the description needed to compensate. It does well for key parameters: debit/credit account IDs are explained, 'total amount across N monthly periods' clarifies totalAmount and periodCount, and the examples map to the kind enum. However, currencyCode and sourceTransactionId are not mentioned at all, and startDate is only implied by 'monthly periods.'

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Create an accrual schedule that spreads a total amount across N monthly periods as accrual-only adjusting entries.' It gives concrete examples (amortize prepaid, defer revenue, depreciate asset) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like accounting_cancel_schedule and accounting_preview_schedule.

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 provides clear usage context: it explains when this tool is appropriate (accrual-based adjustments) and even directs the agent to pick account IDs from accounting_get_chart_of_accounts. It mentions that cash-basis reports are unaffected, which is a useful exclusion. However, it does not explicitly state to use accounting_preview_schedule for previewing or accounting_cancel_schedule for cancellation.

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