get_gst_liability_summary

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses classification logic, the structural vs name_pattern tagging, why both signals are used, deliberate exclusions of non-liability ledgers, netTotal sign convention, reconstruction approach, and the explicit no-match note. This is far more than annotations alone provide.

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 long, but almost every sentence adds necessary behavior or rationale for a nuanced accounting tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then builds detail logically. Slightly verbose, but the detail earns its place for correct agent invocation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return semantics on its own. It covers row composition, classification tags, exclusions, sign convention, reconstruction approach, and the no-match behavior. For a tool with this complexity, the description is unusually complete.

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%, with both from and to documented as start/end dates in DD-MM-YYYY. The description adds that the tool operates over a date range but does not add material semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the parameters.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Get an India GST liability summary for a date range.' It goes beyond a generic statement by detailing what rows are returned and how they are classified, making it easy to distinguish from the VAT sibling and other reporting tools.

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 strong context for when to use this tool by referencing get_vat_liability_summary as the same design pattern and clarifying that this is rebuilt from ledger balances rather than a canned GSTR export. It does not explicitly state 'use X instead when Y', but the India GST scope and exclusions make the intended use clear.

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