Money movements — List by month

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the barrier is low; the description still adds real value with the '[READ]' marker, the milliunits convention (1000 = $1.00), and the rule that a null category id means Ready to Assign. It omits pagination/sync behavior tied to last_knowledge_of_server, keeping it from a 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation, and each sentence adds distinct information (scope, month format, unit conventions). No filler or repetition of the title.

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 no explanation, and the required month parameter is fully specified. The only gap is the two optional parameters (plan_id, last_knowledge_of_server), which an agent cannot interpret from either the schema or the description.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description must carry the load: it documents the required 'month' format thoroughly (ISO first day of month, with example) and explains category semantics, but plan_id and last_knowledge_of_server are never mentioned. The month coverage is good, the rest is undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb+resource+scope ('List money movements ... for a specific month') and even defines the domain term ('budgeted funds moved between categories'), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like money_movements_list or money_movement_groups_list_by_month, 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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. The agent is left to infer from the name alone whether to prefer this over money_movements_list or the groups variant. The only contextual help is about parameter semantics, not tool selection.

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