account_month_amount

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 closing "Read-only" merely repeats structured data and adds nothing. The description discloses no additional behavior such as currency/units of the amount, empty-month behavior, or account scoping.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and period format. The trailing "Read-only" is redundant with annotations but costs almost nothing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. Still, for a monthly amount tool the description leaves the unit/currency and the account identity undefined, and gives no signal on how it differs from the other monthly/account siblings.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema gives only a bare untyped-description "Month" string, so the description's "YYYY-MM" is the sole source of format guidance and genuinely compensates for the gap. It does not cover edge cases like timezone or invalid-month handling, keeping it short of 5.

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 verb (Return) and a resource (account amount data) scoped to a month, which is enough to know it is a monthly read. However, "amount data" is vague about what is being measured, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like recharge_month or account_profile, which also deal with monetary/account data.

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?

"Read-only" is a safety statement, not usage guidance. There is no indication of when to call this instead of account_profile or recharge_month, nor any prerequisite about which account is targeted.

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