finance_xero_close_books

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

With no annotations, the description provides behavioral context: it reviews transactions and proposes adjusting journals, with an auto-post threshold for small journals. It discloses that large journals are queued for approval, which is a key side effect. It does not cover reversibility or data modification details, but overall sufficient.

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 paragraphs: first explains the tool's workflow, second lists arguments. Each sentence is informative and non-redundant. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.

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's complexity (month-end close with multiple steps) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main process: review, propose journals, auto-post small ones. It does not mention idempotency or rerunning, but is reasonably complete for an agent to understand the tool's function.

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?

Description adds meaning to all three parameters: 'period' format (YYYY-MM) and default, 'auto_post_threshold_usd' behavior, and 'message' as free-text objective. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. Each parameter is explained adequately.

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's purpose: 'Run a month-end close on the connected Xero org.' It specifies the resources involved (unreconciled transactions, accruals, prepayments, intercompany eliminations) and the output (proposes adjusting journals). This distinguishes it from sibling Xero tools like xero_create_invoice or finance_xero_consolidation.

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 implies the tool is for month-end close but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions the process of proposing journals for human approval, which suggests it is not fully automated, but lacks guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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