sqo_roi_ledger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real context beyond the name: the data is live, SQLite-backed, denominated in tokens and $USD, and sourced from specific subsystems (hook shield, MCP compression). However, it does not state whether the database is created when absent, whether db_path causes any side effects, or what the read actually returns.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no padding or repetition. It is slightly weighed down by product-flavored phrasing ("autonomous hook shield", "MCP compression engines") where plainer wording would inform the agent faster.

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?

This is a low-complexity, zero-required-parameter read tool, so the bar is modest, and the description covers data provenance and units. Because there is no output schema, the description should ideally sketch the shape of the returned ledger (rows, columns, aggregation) and does not.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents db_path as a custom ledger path. The description never mentions db_path or what happens when it is omitted, so it adds nothing 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?

States a specific verb ("Query") and a specific resource (the SQLite Token & Dollar ROI Ledger), plus what the ledger contains (cumulative tokens saved by the hook shield and compression engines). An agent can distinguish this from the other sqo_* tools, none of which are described as a savings ledger, though the description never names a sibling to contrast against.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as sqo_finops_guard or sqo_context_health, which plausibly overlap in the cost/savings domain. Usage is only implied by the word "ROI".

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