Payout summary

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: one entry per currency, the exact aggregate fields returned, and that amounts are in minor units. It omits granularity/auth/pagination details but adds meaningful context.

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 core purpose in one dense sentence, then a short usage hint. The field enumeration is long but each term earns its place for a financial summary; no filler sentences.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well by listing every aggregate field and the unit (minor units) plus the per-currency granularity. It could still note whether currency_code narrows the result, but it is otherwise sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so start_date/end_date format and the currency_code pattern are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the date-range scoping and never mentions currency_code filtering, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (summary of payouts) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains, which cleanly separates it from the per-payout siblings list_payouts/get_payout. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Good for monthly reconciliation" implies a usage context but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names the competing aggregate tools (get_payout_report_csv, get_payouts_summary_report_csv) to route between them.

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