brc_list_accruals

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses support for optional OData filtering by entryDate and ordering by id, which adds beyond the schema. However, it does not mention that the tool is read-only, whether pagination is available (though implied by top/skip), or any authorization requirements. It provides some behavioral context but is incomplete.

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, consisting of two clear sentences. Every word is necessary and directly conveys the core functionality. No fluff or redundant 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?

For a simple list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate. It explains the resource (Accruals) and key filtering/ordering capabilities. However, it could be enhanced by noting that the response is paginated or by specifying return fields, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds that filtering is by entryDate and ordering by id, which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional nuance or examples beyond what is in the parameter descriptions. It offers marginal added value.

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 tool returns a list of the company's Accruals, using a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Accruals'). While it implicitly differentiates from sibling list tools by focusing on the Accruals entity, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from other list tools in the same family.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., brc_get_accrual for single record retrieval). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.

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