Get Money Movements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which tell the agent this tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds that movements performed together share a group with its own note, which is a useful behavioral detail but does not fundamentally change the risk profile. With annotations covering the main behavioral transparency needs, the description's extra value is moderate.

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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: first introduces what the tool is, second explains when to use it, third notes a grouping behavior. There is no redundancy or waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given that the tool has only optional parameters, rich annotations (read-only, idempotent), and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to use it. It explains the nature of the data (audit feed of moves) and the grouping behavior, which is enough for correct invocation.

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 has 100% coverage, meaning all parameters (limit, month, budget_id) are described with sufficient detail in the schema itself. The description does not add new semantics for parameters beyond what the schema provides. Thus, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states it is an 'audit feed of money moved between categories or to/from Ready to Assign.' It explains the specific purpose: showing the history behind each category's budgeted amount, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_transactions (which searches individual transactions) and get_monthly_budget (which shows budget amounts, not movements).

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 explicitly provides use cases: 'Use it to explain why a budgeted amount changed, or to see which moves were already made this month before proposing new ones.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the purpose is sufficiently distinct from siblings.

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