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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the shape of the payload (summary totals only, no per-transaction rows), the paging mechanism, and the underlying endpoint POST /reporting/statements/list.

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?

Three compact clauses, no filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what the rows contain and what to use instead for details) is front-loaded.

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, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and clarifying the aggregation level. Paging is noted and the sibling for detail rows is named, leaving nothing an agent needs in order 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 limit and offset are fully documented in the schema (ranges, defaults, next_offset guidance). The description restates 'paged with offset/limit' without adding syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list statements) and immediately enumerates the returned fields (id, date, amount, fees, refunded, debited, credited, summary totals), which pins the resource down precisely. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from qgiv_get_statement by noting it excludes per-transaction rows.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to qgiv_get_statement when per-transaction rows are needed, which is a genuine use/use-not distinction. It does not address the sibling qgiv_get_latest_statements, so the alternative mapping is incomplete.

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