get_financial_events

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

There are no annotations, so the description must convey behavior. It states the tool lists events 'posted in a date range,' implying a read-only operation and a filtering constraint, but it does not disclose details like pagination, permissions, or response structure (which is covered by the output schema). It adds some context by specifying the date format.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant information or filler.

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 low complexity (two simple string parameters) and the presence of an output schema, this description is quite complete: it identifies the action, the resource, the event categories, and the date-range input. It could be slightly more explicit about when to prefer it over sibling tools, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the date range and format (YYYY-MM-DD), which aligns with start_date and end_date, but it does not explicitly map each parameter to its role or state constraints like start_date must precede end_date. It provides partial semantic support.

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 lists Amazon financial events (fees, refunds, reimbursements) within a date range, using the specific verb 'List' and a well-defined resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_orders and list_sku_costs by focusing on financial events, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 retrieving financial events within a date range, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions like 'use get_orders for order details.' The context provides some guidance, but it lacks explicit usage direction.

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