Debts by person

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful output semantics (positive = they owe you, negative = you owe them, per currency and main currency) that annotations cannot carry. It does not disclose pagination, sorting, or whether balances are computed live.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core purpose and sign convention are front-loaded, and the parameter behavior is appended last where it belongs. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so well via the sign convention and currency dimension. It is only mildly incomplete: it says nothing about ordering, empty results, or how settled people appear by default.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: passing 'person' also returns that person's debt transactions, which is not implied by the schema's 'Substring of the person name'. The interaction with include_settled is left to the schema.

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 names a specific resource and semantics: per-person debt balances derived from debt operations, with the sign convention spelled out. It clearly distinguishes itself from transaction/account/category siblings by domain. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling, but the resource is unique enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 resource ('who owes whom'), and the description explains what passing 'person' adds, which is a light form of usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of an alternative for raw transaction history, and no note on when to set include_settled.

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