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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the read-only annotation: null cells for days with no trades, days expressed in the journal timezone, and the requirement of LuxAlgo OAuth sign-in. These details inform the agent about data shape and prerequisites without contradicting the annotations.

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 dense but every clause earns its place: output structure, null behavior, timezone, default month behavior, drill-down alternative, and auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the core resource and then fills in supporting details without 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so thoroughly: day cells, weekly totals, monthly totals, and null semantics. Combined with read-only annotations and schema-documented parameters, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents `month`, `context`, and `accounts` thoroughly. The description adds one useful default hint ('Omit `month` for the current month') but does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states exactly what the tool returns: one month of the P&L calendar with week rows, day cells, and monthly aggregates. It differentiates itself from journal_get_day by explicitly framing that tool as the day-level drill-down, so an agent can pick the right sibling without opening schemas.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: omit `month` for the current month and use journal_get_day to drill into a single day. It does not enumerate all alternative siblings such as journal_overview or journal_breakdown, but the context for when this calendar view is appropriate is clear.

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