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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value here is the auth behavior: the user needs a GetAccountED sign-in and is prompted for it on first use, which is genuinely useful operational context. It also discloses the shape of the result. Minor gaps: no mention of the 200 default limit or what happens when 500 postings are exceeded.

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 tightly packed sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second handles read-only status and the auth prerequisite. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 5-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, result contents, and the sign-in requirement — most of what an agent needs. It falls just short on pagination behavior and the business_id/client-books routing, which matter for accounting-practice users but are left entirely to the schema.

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 every parameter including business_id and limit is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the concepts of 'one account' and 'date range' without adding format, defaults, or behavioral notes beyond the schema. 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?

Names a specific resource and scope ('General ledger for one account over a date range') and enumerates the exact contents returned: opening balance, postings with reference and description, running and closing balance. An agent can tell this is a per-account transaction listing rather than an aggregate report, though it never names the sibling reports (trial_balance, balance_sheet) it might be confused with.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope statement — pull the full posting history for a single account within a date range — and the sign-in prerequisite is made explicit. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over accounting_trial_balance or accounting_balance_sheet, and no mention of when a date range is required versus optional.

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