add_income

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and partially discharges it: it discloses the duplicate/filed-quarter guards, the dry-run default, and the shape of the write. It does not say what a refusal returns, whether partial rows are accepted, or whether the write is reversible.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the required payload, then the guardrails. The long key list is long but justified by the empty schema.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover everything; it covers the payload and some failure modes but not the dry-run response, error semantics, or how amount/currency/fx combine. Adequate but with real gaps for a mutation tool.

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 0% and the row object is opaque (additionalProperties: true), so the enumerated key list is essential and includes a format hint (invoice_date YYYY-MM-DD). Meaning of individual fields (fx, net_eur, vat_case, withheld) is still left to inference, keeping it below 5.

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 and resource: 'Add one sale to the year's income tab.' That cleanly separates it from add_expense (outflow) and propose_income (proposal vs. commit), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Dry run first' gives a concrete workflow directive, and 'Refuses duplicates and filed quarters' implies when it will fail. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus propose_income or how to handle a refusal.

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