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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable semantic context: 'Monthly values represent movements rather than monthly balances,' preventing a common misinterpretation of the returned data. It does not describe pagination or company-conext behavior, but the note about movements gives beyond-annotation insight.

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?

Two short sentences with no fluff. The main return statement is front-loaded, and the clarifying movement-vs-balance note is a single concise follow-up. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description gives the core return content and a key interpretation warning, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema and eight parameters, it omits practical call context: pagination behavior, required company context, and when to use this tool vs. grouped or multi-company nominal report siblings. It is minimally viable but incomplete.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning. Schema description coverage is only 50%, and parameters like top, page, skip, and pageSize lack descriptions, yet the tool description does not compensate by explaining pagination or the required companyName context. The included note about monthly movements is about return-value interpretation, not parameter semantics.

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 and resource: 'Returns nominal accounts and period movements.' The clarification that monthly values are movements rather than balances adds precision. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools like brc_grouped_nominal_accounts_report or brc_multi_company_nom_ac_report, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives, mention prerequisites, or identify exclusions. An agent browsing the large sibling list has no signal about whether this tool is the right choice vs. other nominal-account reports.

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