Compute Client Net Position

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the attribution rule (journal header client) and warns that offsetting postings under other clients are excluded, so the result is not proof of personal debt. It omits the caching behavior implied by the 'fresh' parameter.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the important interpretation caveat following. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a read-only computation with a fully described schema and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, attribution semantics, and the key limitation. It could still say something about the shape of the returned net position, which the absent output schema leaves unaddressed.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented (including the default account list). The phrase 'across selected accounts' loosely maps to account_ids but adds no syntax or format detail, and 'fresh' is not elaborated. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Compute net position against a client across selected accounts.' This is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like compute_account_balance or compute_receivables_aging. It does not name or contrast with a sibling directly, 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 only implied — the tool computes a client net position, so an agent can infer when it applies. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative tool named (e.g. compute_account_balance for a single account). Adequate but with a clear gap.

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