anon_get_finance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantive behavior: role-based visibility (finance:manage / project:manage see everything, finance:add sees only their own entries with summary=null), descending creation-time ordering, and that the project is derived from the API key. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then permission semantics, ordering, endpoint, and the no-projectId note. Every sentence carries information, though the permission branch is dense and could be slightly tighter.

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?

For a zero-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers authorization, role-dependent data visibility, the null-summary edge case, sort order, and the endpoint/project resolution. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description usefully clarifies that no projectId is needed because it is auto-determined from the API key, which prevents an agent from trying to supply it despite the path template.

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 specific verb and resource ("列出账目与汇总" – list transactions and summary) on a concrete endpoint, and the scope is explicit. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the very similar sibling anon_get_finance_export, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 tells who may call it ("任一项目成员可用") and what different roles see, which implicitly sets usage context. It never states when to choose this over anon_get_finance_export or anon_post_finance, so no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance is given.

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