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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the scope: it returns 'named companies' and includes a 'public source for each record', which implies transparency and traceability. It does not mention pagination or sorting, but those are less critical given the safe, 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?

The description is a single sentence that is dense with information: it names the resource, the type of records, and the specific data fields. It is front-loaded with the resource name and immediately conveys the purpose. There is no wordiness or redundancy.

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 has an output schema (which presumably lists the response fields), the description doesn't need to detail return format. The description covers the essence: what the ledger contains and what fields are included. With annotations declaring it read-only and idempotent, and schema covering the parameters, the description is complete for 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 description coverage is 100%: both parameters (limit and query) have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what's in the schema, but the schema already documents the parameters well, including default for limit and the filter fields. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 the resource (Revenue AI Report Reversal Ledger) and the specific data fields returned (vendor, function, seat, dates, cost, reason, source). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by naming the exact ledger, making it clear this is a specialized list, not a generic catalog.

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 this tool: when you need reversal ledger records with specific details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of the resource and fields makes the use case obvious. Given the sibling tools are generic getters/listers for other resources, the guidance is clear enough without explicit exclusion.

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