lease_ledger_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states that the tool returns a 'flags' list of human-readable findings, implying a read-only report. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences long: the first packs the tool's comprehensive nature, the second provides usage context. No superfluous words, every sentence adds value.

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 that an output schema exists (so return format doesn't need full explanation) and only two optional parameters, the description covers the tool's purpose and bundling. It lacks parameter documentation, but the overall context is adequate for a report tool.

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 two parameters (end, start) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention them at all. The agent must infer that these are date-range filters from their names, which is insufficient for precise invocation.

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 defines the tool as a comprehensive lease-vs-ledger cross-examination bundling multiple checks (lease terms, rent, charges, deposit, late fees) and returning findings. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_late_fees or check_rent_charges by being an all-in-one report.

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 explicitly advises 'Start here for open-ended questions like is my ledger consistent with my lease?', providing clear guidance on when to use it. While it doesn't mention when not to use it or list alternatives, the context is clear.

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