how_much_money

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds the useful context that it reports both invoiced and collected totals and defaults to a 30-day window, but it leaves ambiguity about which date field the window applies to and whether the totals are returned separately or combined.

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 extremely compact: two sentences deliver example queries and the core output definition with no redundant wording. The front-loaded examples immediately orient the agent.

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 is simple and has an output schema plus strong annotations, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, the incomplete parameter semantics and the ambiguity about 'collected' (payments received, cash basis, etc.) prevent it from being a fully complete guidance.

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%, but the description only mentions a 'date window (default 30 days),' which maps loosely to the days parameter. It does not explain the format or role of start_date and end_date, nor how they interact with days, leaving the three parameters under-specified.

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 opens with example user questions that clearly identify the tool's purpose, then states 'Invoiced + collected totals for a date window,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It is easily distinguished from siblings like who_owes_me_money because it targets gross invoicing and collections rather than outstanding balances.

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 example questions provide clear guidance on when an agent should invoke this tool (e.g., 'How much money came in?', 'What did we invoice this month?'), and the date-window note indicates the temporal scoping. It does not explicitly call out alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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