report_settle

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It correctly declares read-only nature and mentions computed totals. However, it doesn't detail output structure or behavior beyond that, which is acceptable for a simple query tool.

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 with no fluff. All key information is front-loaded: purpose, content, usage context, defaults. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 tool has one optional param and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage timing, and read-only nature. Could mention output format but not necessary for basic understanding.

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 has 100% coverage for the single optional parameter 'period' with format description. The description repeats default behavior, adding no new semantic meaning 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 clearly identifies the tool as a read-only summary for a period, specifying it includes balance sheet and cash flow entries with computed totals (net_worth, net_flow). It distinguishes from sibling report tools by tying its use to settlement results after entries via add_balance/add_flow.

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 description explicitly states when to use: review month-end settlement results after entries are recorded via add_balance/add_flow. It mentions default to current month. While it doesn't list alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes usage clear.

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