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

The description's read-only intent matches the readOnlyHint annotation, and it adds transparency by noting that financial inputs remain founder-declared and non-certifying. It does not mention any side effects, consistent with the idempotentHint and destructiveHint false. The additional caveat about certification goes beyond the annotations, improving transparency.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two clear sentences that cover the action, resource, and important caveats. There is no redundant or extraneous information, and the sentences are well-structured and easy to parse.

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 workspace tool, the description provides sufficient context: the resource type, the prerequisite tier, and a limitation on the data's certification. It does not describe the output format or what the reporting workspace contains, but given that no output schema is shown and the operation is purely read-only, the lack of output details is not a major gap.

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 provides the parameter name (project_id), type (integer), required status, and minimum value (exclusiveMinimum 0), giving basic structural coverage. The description refers to 'selected project' but does not explicitly explain that project_id identifies the project in question. While the meaning is inferable from context, the parameter semantics are not fully elaborated.

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 a read action ('Read') and identifies the resource as the selected project's monthly close history and reporting workspace. It distinguishes the tool as a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like founder_close.get or founder_close.room_review, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.

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 includes a necessary prerequisite ('Requires Startup or higher') and a key limitation ('does not certify readiness'), which helps set expectations. However, it does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over other founder_close siblings, so usage context is only partially covered.

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