missing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real content by disclosing the specific checks performed (flagged rows, orphan files, duplicate receipts, missing months, income without AT documents). However, it never states that it is a read-only report, whether it writes anything to the sheet, or what the result looks like, leaving key behavioral traits unstated.

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 scope statement 'What is still missing for a year' is front-loaded, and each subsequent clause names a concrete check that adds information. The sentence is long and runs on, but nearly every clause earns its place as an enumerated check.

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?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema reporting tool, the description covers the substantive question an agent needs answered: what the report contains. Gaps remain around output shape and read-only behavior, but the core scope is complete.

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 description only implies the sole parameter via 'for a year', without clarifying whether that means calendar year, a specific year sheet, or the expected format for the integer. The single parameter is at least semantically reachable, but the description does not compensate for the empty schema documentation.

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 enumerates the exact categories of gaps the tool reports (MISSING rows, unbooked files, duplicate receipts, missing subscription months, unbooked income sales), making its purpose as a diagnostic gap report clear. It lacks an explicit verb (list/report) and does not contrast itself with siblings like reconcile_efatura or index_year, but the enumerated checks distinguish it well enough.

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 enumerated checks suggest an audit/reconciliation scenario, but the description never says when to call this versus reconcile_efatura, vat_return, or index_year, nor does it state any preconditions. An agent can infer the intent but must guess at alternatives.

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