kie_ledger

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that this is a ledger and a data source, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not confirm whether the tool modifies state, what the return format is, whether pagination is handled, or any other runtime behavior. This is a significant gap for a data-access 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose ('Spend ledger'), and the second sentence adds a practical usage note. Every word contributes value, making it optimally sized.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, and the description provides only minimal context. It lacks explicit information about the return structure, whether entries are listed chronologically, how filters work together, or any side effects. For a tool that the agent will likely use for user-facing reporting, the description is incomplete.

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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters (limit, runId, since) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain them. The description adds no extra parameter context, but the schema descriptions are sufficient, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 'spend ledger' and explains it tracks 'what was generated and what it cost,' which indicates the resource and its content. It distinguishes from siblings like 'kie_balance' by implying a detailed transaction log rather than a summary. However, it lacks a direct verb (e.g., 'list', 'retrieve') that would more explicitly state the action.

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 phrase 'The source for a report to the user' provides a clear use case—when the agent needs to report on generation and costs—but it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or any alternatives. The context is implied rather than clearly guiding selection among sibling tools.

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