customer_money

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the content of the response (balance, invoices, etc.) and that it comes 'in one response', but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or any side effects. It adds some context beyond a bare description, but not rich behavioral detail.

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 sentences and every word earns its place. The first sentence states the tool's output and scope; the second gives usage guidance and prerequisite. It is concise, front-loaded, and free of fluff.

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 the tool has an output schema (per context signals), the description does not need to explain return values, and it does cover the main use case and key parameter. However, the lack of any explanation for 'limit' leaves a small but real completeness gap, so not a perfect 5.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly explains customer_id ('Needs a customer id'), but the 'limit' parameter is left completely unexplained. Without any schema descriptions or additional context, an agent cannot know what 'limit' controls (e.g., number of invoices or transactions). This is a notable gap.

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 the tool returns a consolidated set of financial data (balance, estimates, invoices, payments) for a single customer, using specific nouns and a clear scope ('for one customer'). This distinguishes it from siblings like customer_overview or find_customer, which likely cover broader or different 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?

Explicitly states when to use ('what do they owe' or billing-history questions) and mentions the prerequisite of a customer ID, pointing to find_customer as the source. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it compares to customer_overview, so it lacks full when-not coverage.

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