Money movement groups — List by month

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the '[READ]' prefix is largely redundant. The description does add genuine domain context — that a group is a container with no amount of its own — but says nothing about pagination or the incremental-sync behavior implied by last_knowledge_of_server.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the domain clarification, then the parameter format. Efficient overall, though the '[READ]' tag duplicates the annotations and is minor filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 3-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the two optional parameters — plan scoping and the server-knowledge cursor — are undocumented, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 carries the full burden. It documents month well (ISO date string, first day of month, example), but plan_id and especially last_knowledge_of_server — a sync cursor whose semantics are non-obvious — are left completely unexplained.

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 with a clear scope qualifier ('List money movement groups for a specific month'), and the definition of what a group is distinguishes it conceptually from money_movements_list. It does not explicitly name the sibling money_movement_groups_list (all-months) as the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implied by the 'by_month' scope and the required month parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to the unfiltered sibling. An agent must infer that this tool is for month-scoped retrieval versus money_movement_groups_list.

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