get_month_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint that only *closed* periods are served, but says nothing about behavior for an open or invalid month (empty result vs. error) or about the volume/shape of the notes returned.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope qualifier ('single closed') comes before the format detail, so the most decision-relevant information lands first.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with strong annotation coverage and no output schema, and the description covers the core question of what it returns. It remains thin on edge cases (open month, malformed month) and gives no sense of what 'methodological notes' contain, which is the main thing an agent would want before calling.

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% — the schema only names the field 'Month' with no description — so the description must carry the load. It does contribute the YYYY-MM format and the 'closed period' constraint, but does not say whether the month is zero-padded, whether the period is calendar or fiscal, or how validation failures surface.

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?

Names a specific resource (methodological notes) and a specific scope (a single closed YYYY-MM period), which distinguishes it from siblings such as get_balances or get_pnl that return numeric data. It does not explicitly contrast itself with list_months, but the singular/plural distinction is evident from the resource wording.

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 agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs documentation about how a given month's figures were computed. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_months or the data tools, and no guidance on what to do if the requested month is not closed.

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