funds_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'read-only' note is redundant. It adds some context by listing the data categories, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, or other operational details. This is a marginal addition beyond 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 extremely brief, but it is not effectively concise because it contains a '[VERB]' placeholder and uses a cryptic pipe-separated list. The structure is under-specified and gives the impression of a template that was not completed.

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 18 parameters and no output schema, this one-line description is insufficient for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain pagination, return values, or how to combine parameters for different actions. The schema descriptions help, but the tool-level description leaves significant gaps.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 18 parameters, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It does mirror the 'action' enum (financial, convert, subTransfers, transferableCoins) in its list, but this adds no new semantic value since the schema already explains each action. The description fails to provide any additional parameter-level guidance.

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 identifies the resource as funds history and enumerates the record types (financial ledger, convert, sub-transfers, transferable coins), which provides useful scope. However, it begins with a literal '[VERB]' placeholder instead of a concrete verb, making the action implied rather than explicit. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the category list gives some implicit distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like account_overview or transfer_funds. The description merely states what the tool covers without any context on selection criteria or prerequisites.

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