book_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists output-related fields but never states that the operation is read-only, whether it requires an authenticated connection, or what happens when no book is active. This is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether it is safe and appropriate to call.

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 a single sentence with every word contributing: the verb, the resource, and the included summary fields are all present. There is no padding or redundant detail, and the core action 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?

For a no-parameter status tool with an available output schema, the description covers the resource and the main summary contents well. The only notable omission is an explicit connection prerequisite, but that is reasonably inferred from the phrase 'current book' and the sibling connect_book/connection_status tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a concern; the description's 'current book' phrasing correctly communicates that the tool acts on the established book context rather than taking inputs. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 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?

The description opens with a specific verb, 'Summarise', and identifies the resource as 'the current book', then enumerates the summary contents: location, account count, balances, and last commits. This makes its role as an overview tool reasonably clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like balances or list_accounts.

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 implies a use case: returning an overview of the currently connected book. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over more focused siblings such as list_accounts, balances, get_ledger, or history, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an active book connection.

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