Get Month Money Movement Groups

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies '[1 API call]', which hints at performance or rate limits, but annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. No details on response format, pagination, or error handling are provided, so it adds some value but not rich behavioral insight.

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 description is extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads key information ('[1 API call]' and the action). There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (read-only with 2 parameters) and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it fails to explain return values or data structure, leaving gaps in understanding what 'money movement groups' entail, which reduces completeness.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining 'money movement groups' or parameter interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('money movement groups for a specific month'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_month_money_movements' or 'list_money_movement_groups', which appear to be related, so it misses full distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sibling tools like 'get_month_money_movements' or 'list_money_movement_groups'. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, offering only basic functional information.

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