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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context: live data fetching, date-bounded and currency-safe calculations, reconciliation status, integrity receipt, and a data-accuracy contract that prohibits inventing metrics. This goes well beyond the structured metadata.

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 front-loaded with the primary deliverable, then inputs, then response requirements and accuracy constraints. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining needed context: data sources, date bounds, output format, required suffix, and a contract for handling missing or derived data. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 fully documents both parameters with patterns and descriptions, and the description adds the 366-day maximum that the schema pattern does not enforce, plus clarification of defaults. This is meaningful semantic context beyond the schema.

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 action and resource: fetching live Axonaut invoices, payments, opportunities, and account data and returning a dashboard plus supporting artifacts. It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling axonaut_connector or other dashboard tools, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 operational context: optional start_date/end_date with defaults, a 366-day maximum, required response suffix, and strict accuracy rules. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over axonaut_connector or alternative dashboards, so exclusions and alternatives are missing.

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