Analysis — Copied forward months

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial extra behavior: the per-month request cost, the 36-month limit, the pre-read of the month before the range, and the 12-month default. This is exactly the kind of cost/scope disclosure annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads the definition and keeps the operational details (defaults, cost, limits) at the end where they belong. The $10,000 anecdote is illustrative but slightly restates the 'applied without review' idea already conveyed, costing a bit of density.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, defaults, and request cost adequately for an analysis tool. The remaining gap is the silent treatment of plan_id and include_hidden, which an agent must infer from the schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain from_month/to_month semantics (widen or shift the window) plus the effective default. However, plan_id and include_hidden are never addressed, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 verb+resource ('find months whose assignments are an exact copy of the month before') and frames the diagnostic meaning of that pattern. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling analysis tools such as analysis_assignment_patterns or months_range.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context (detecting unreviewed 'assign last month's amounts'), states the default window, and points to overview_request_budget before running a long range. It never names an explicit alternative or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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