Changes — Since last check

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real context beyond that: deleted records are omitted, a delta only reports that a record changed (not how) so values shown are current, and the call costs three requests regardless of volume. It stops short of describing pagination/limit behavior against the default of 200.

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 purpose and the calling protocol, and most sentences earn their place. The cost point is stated twice at the end ('this costs three no matter how much moved' and 'Costs three requests'), which is a minor redundancy.

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 not be described, and the description covers the incremental-sync workflow, deletion behavior, and cost model well. It is only slightly incomplete in not addressing what limit and plan_id do.

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 has to carry the load, and it does explain server_knowledge thoroughly (baseline, then passed back each call). However, limit and plan_id are never mentioned, leaving two of three parameters without any semantic guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — what changed in the plan since a given server_knowledge value — and names the entities returned (categories, months, transactions). It is clearly distinguishable from the list/get siblings because it is framed as an incremental delta rather than a full read.

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 explicit when-to-use (after the user edits their budget in the app instead of re-reading everything), an explicit calling protocol (call with no arguments first for a baseline, then pass the value back), and an alternative it outperforms (re-reading a range costs one request per month vs. three here).

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