aggregate_statement_inputs

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

Given no annotations, the description adds detail: deterministic, idempotent, building cycles from statement instances with close dates, assigning inputs, and reporting unrolled inputs. However, it does not clarify whether the tool modifies state or is read-only, which is a gap.

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 three sentences, concise and to the point. It front-loads the main action and adds behavioral details. However, it could be more structured by separating behavior from parameter info.

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?

The tool has no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and 2 parameters. The description explains the process but does not cover input semantics or output format. For a tool that likely creates aggregates, more detail on return values and side effects is needed.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters 'target_obligation_id' and 'db_path'. It mentions 'target obligation' but does not explicitly link to the parameter or describe what 'db_path' does. This forces the agent to guess.

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 verb 'Group' and the resource 'card-statement-input charges', and specifies the outcome: grouping into statement cycles. It also notes determinism and idempotency, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that may be non-deterministic or involve side effects.

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 usage for grouping charges into cycles, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_statement_input_estimates' or 'recompute_statement_estimates'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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