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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by stating that nothing is created and by naming the returned preview artifacts, though it does not discuss auth or rate limits.

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 tight sentences with no wasted wording. The core preview/no-creation behavior is front-loaded, followed by the useful createLedger compatibility note.

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 preview tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, side-effect profile, and return categories. The main remaining gap is that the complex nested setup parameter is only cross-referenced to createLedger rather than further explained.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry extra meaning. It adds a useful semantic link by saying the setup object is the same as createLedger's, but it does not explain the nested setup fields, preset enum, accounts, capabilities, or historyStart beyond what the schema structurally exposes.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: preview a ledger setup without creating anything. It also states what the preview returns and explicitly contrasts with createLedger by saying it accepts the same setup object, so an agent can distinguish it from creation siblings.

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?

It clearly implies when to use this tool: to inspect the files, account list, and validation result before creating anything. It names createLedger as the related alternative, though it does not explicitly exclude other validation tools such as checkLedger.

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