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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns 'one bounded page' (pagination behavior), is tenant-scoped, excludes many data categories, and cannot execute payments. This is consistent with the annotations and adds meaningful constraints.

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 two sentences with the core aggregation behavior front-loaded in the first sentence and exclusions in the second. The second sentence is a long list but every item adds important scope or safety information, so it earns its place. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but remains focused and well-structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be spelled out in the description. The description covers aggregation granularity, page bound, tenancy scope, and major exclusions. It does not explicitly explain how limit/cursor control pagination, but the schema documents those parameters and 'bounded page' hints at their role.

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 high (80%), with four of five parameters already documented in the input schema. The description adds only the general notion of a 'bounded page,' which contextualizes limit and cursor but does not detail parameter semantics. The limit parameter lacks a schema description, but its constraints (maximum 100, exclusiveMinimum 0) make its meaning inferable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Aggregate amount and count by currency and operational status' for 'tenant-scoped Veterical payment records.' It clearly distinguishes this from a plain list tool by stating what it returns and what it explicitly does not return, and no sibling tool overlaps with this aggregation behavior.

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 contextual guidance: use it when aggregate totals by currency/status are needed, not when transaction-level details such as IDs, dates, or line items are required. It explicitly states the tool 'cannot move funds or execute a payment,' which prevents misuse. It does not name an alternative sibling, but no direct alternative exists among the listed tools.

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