export_period_markdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering basic safety and behavioral traits. The description adds no further behavioral context but does not contradict annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded with no unnecessary words.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 6 parameters with no descriptions. The description omits what the period report contains (e.g., which data fields, aggregation level). It feels incomplete for a tool with this parameter count and sibling complexity.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. While parameter names (fromDate, toDate, direction, etc.) provide some clues, 'direction' as a free string without allowed values is unclear. The description fails to add meaning beyond 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 states 'Export a generic period report as Markdown,' which clearly identifies the verb (export), resource (period report), and format (Markdown). It distinguishes from sibling reporting tools like export_counterparty_markdown and fiscal_period_summary. However, 'generic period report' is somewhat vague, lacking specifics on what data the report includes.

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 aruba_monthly_summary or fiscal_period_summary. There is no indication of prerequisites, when not to use it, or which scenario it best fits.

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