myob_receive_money_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'List' but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or required authentication. The minimal description provides almost no behavioral context beyond the literal action.

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?

The single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is severely under-specified. It omits essential information about parameters, use cases, and behavior, which is more under-specification than appropriate conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema and three optional parameters, the description is woefully incomplete for a tool in a large sibling family. It does not explain how it relates to authentication, business selection, or filtering, and it offers no guidance on when to prefer it over other list tools. The agent is left with almost no actionable context beyond the tool name.

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?

The schema has three parameters (top, filter, business_id) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any of them. The agent receives no explanation of what these parameters mean, how they affect the query, or their valid values, making parameter usage entirely opaque.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('receive-money transactions'), which directly matches the tool name and distinguishes it from sibling list tools. However, it lacks elaboration on returned data or MYOB-specific terminology, leaving some ambiguity for unfamiliar users.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like spend_money_list or customer_payment_list. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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