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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable boundaries beyond those annotations: it explicitly excludes invoice, payment, customer, and identifier data, and states that it cannot execute or advise on a financial transaction.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with no filler. The main function is front-loaded, followed by data-boundary and safety clarifications, each earning its place.

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 read-only summary tool with a rich output schema and full parameter descriptions, the definition covers scope, date-window limits, aggregate-only behavior, and the non-transaction boundary. There is no missing operational detail that would prevent correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents businessId, startDate, and endDate. The description adds operational semantics by constraining the range to at most 366 UTC days and clarifying that businessId is a tenant-owned business, improving selection and invocation without repeating parameter definitions.

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 uses a specific verb/resource pair, 'Summarize invoice production and recorded payments,' and narrows scope to one tenant-owned business over a bounded UTC date range. It further distinguishes itself from sibling detail tools by stating it returns aggregate counts and amounts only, never item-level or identifier data.

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 conveys a clear context: use it for aggregate revenue summaries over a date window, not for itemized data or executing financial transactions. It does not name sibling tools like get_receivables_summary or get_quote_pipeline_summary explicitly, so the alternatives are implied rather than spelled out.

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