ledger

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Read ledger movements' implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether ledger movements are destructive. The description is minimal and does not disclose potential side effects or constraints beyond the basic operation.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, then clearly listing parameters with usage hints. No extraneous information. 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 the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should be more comprehensive. It omits explaining limit and offset, and does not describe the return format or any pagination behavior. While it covers core parameters, the overall completeness is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without guessing.

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 description adds meaning for account_id (UUID, resolve from list_accounts) and date parameters (ISO date bounds), but fails to mention limit and offset parameters present in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it leaves two parameters undocumented, providing only partial 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 'Read ledger movements for ONE PGC account', specifying the action (read), resource (ledger movements), and scope (one account). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_accounts (lists accounts) or list_bank_movements (bank movements).

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 implicit guidance by noting that account_id should be resolved from list_accounts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like trial_balance or list_bank_movements. No exclusions or when-not scenarios are mentioned.

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