invoiceninja_dashboard_totals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value beyond the schema by stating that omitted dates fall back to the instance's default period, which the null defaults in the schema do not convey. It stops short of describing aggregation scope or counting rules.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, with the returned-metric list front-loaded and the default-period caveat following it. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 return-value duty and does so by naming the metrics and the per-currency grouping. Annotations cover safety, and all params are schema-documented, so the agent has nearly everything; only the derivation/boundary semantics of the period are left implicit.

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 100% and all three parameters (start_date, end_date, response_format) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the period semantics but adds no format, timezone, or inclusive/exclusive-boundary detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a precise verb and resource ('totals per currency for a period') and enumerates the exact metrics returned (invoiced, paid, outstanding with count, expenses). It is clearly distinct from the many list_*/get_* siblings, though it never names an alternative it should not be confused with (e.g. get_statics or run_report).

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?

Usage is only implied: the metric set and 'period' framing suggest this is the dashboard summary tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to the reporting siblings (run_report, get_statics) that could overlap. Minimum-viable guidance.

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