record_funds_summary

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral detail about who computes the numbers and the mandatory note for discrepancies, but it does not disclose whether repeated calls overwrite existing summaries, what side effects occur, or any permission requirements for this write operation.

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 two concises paragraphs: purpose and context first, then the args structure. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no filler or redundant repetition of the schema.

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 description is unnecessary. The description provides the missing inner args structure and the procedural context around evidence synthesis. The main gap is a slight mismatch with the formal schema, which allows args to be null while the description implies all inner fields are mandatory, plus no idempotency guidance.

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 schema provides 0% description coverage and defines args only as an open object, so the description compensates strongly by listing the exact keys and marking each as required. It also maps the keys to their business meanings (报案合计, 合同合计, etc.). It stops short of a 5 by not giving explicit types or edge-case handling for these amounts.

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 states a specific action — recording the funds reconciliation summary — and lists the six key monetary figures it captures, so the resource is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling record_* tools by focusing uniquely on this summary, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

It gives a clear precondition: the conclusionist must call it after synthesizing all documentary evidence and transcripts, and must explain any inconsistency across figures in the note. This is solid context but it does not explicitly address when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

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