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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds the 'straight-line per-period split' computation detail and 'without persisting anything', which are useful beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists; the description reinforces the read-only nature.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the key information (non-persisting, read-only) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making it an exemplary concise description.

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?

Although the tool has an output schema (so return values are covered) and annotations handle safety, the description leaves startDate unexplained, which is a core input for a schedule preview. It also does not clarify whether startDate influences the split (e.g., determines the first period). This gap makes it incomplete for a 3-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It mentions 'given amount and period count' but completely omits startDate, leaving its purpose unclear. It also does not clarify that totalAmount is a string with decimal format, which is non-obvious. The description adds only partial meaning, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 (computes) and resource (straight-line per-period split) and explicitly notes it does not persist anything, distinguishing it from accounting_create_schedule and accounting_get_schedule. The read-only nature is also stated, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 ('without persisting anything' suggests preview before commit) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. It conveys the context effectively, though it could be more direct about when not to use it (e.g., when you need to save).

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