getMoneyMovements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'returns all money movements' without mentioning read-only behavior, filtering, pagination, or any side effects. For a tool that likely queries data, the lack of detail about what 'all' means in relation to the required plan_id is a notable 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 a single sentence with no fluff. It is efficiently worded, though it is so brief that it may be under-specified rather than concise. It earns a 4 because there is zero waste, but the brevity contributes to completeness issues.

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 existence of siblings like getMoneyMovementsByMonth and getMoneyMovementGroups, the description is insufficient to distinguish this tool's scope or output. It does not clarify whether 'all' means all time or all for the given plan, and the output schema exists but is not referenced. The description is too thin for an agent to use this tool confidently without exploring other definitions.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (plan_id) with a detailed description including special values. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so it neither helps nor harms. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 uses a clear verb ('returns') and resource ('money movements'), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like getMoneyMovementsByMonth or getMoneyMovementGroups, which also return money-movement-related data, so an agent cannot tell them apart from the description alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. No mention of scope (e.g., all time vs. a specific month) or conditions that would make getMoneyMovementsByMonth more appropriate. The description gives no exclusions or alternatives, so an agent has no basis for selection.

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