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

Adds real context annotations do not carry: the Bearer <customer key> auth requirement and the exact contents of the returned statement, plus that a signature is issued by Allooloo. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description never explains what non-read-only behavior occurs (e.g., whether issuing a statement consumes state or why repeated calls are not idempotent).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence packs purpose, input formats, return contents, and auth with essentially no filler. It is long but dense; the parenthetical format notes are placed where they are needed.

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 no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields and the auth header. Remaining gaps are defaults for the optional parameters and the behavior behind the non-read-only/non-idempotent hints, which one more clause could close.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: month format YYYY-MM, from/to format YYYY-MM-DD, and the non-obvious detail that 'to' is exclusive. It does not state whether the modes are mutually exclusive or what happens if none are supplied (all params optional).

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?

States a concrete resource and scope: a signed statement over the caller's slice for a month or a date range, and enumerates exactly what the statement contains (count, seq bounds, digest, chain tip, Ed25519 signature). It is distinguishable from list_receipts/verify_receipt/write_receipt, though it never explicitly routes away from those 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 implies usage by presenting two mutually acceptable input modes (month YYYY-MM, or from/to with to exclusive), which tells an agent how to parameterize the call. It gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools, so the choice of this tool over list_receipts/verify_receipt is left implicit.

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