list_cash_movements

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing cursor pagination and the 404 failure mode for wrong account types, but it says nothing about permissions, result volume, or the shape of a movement record.

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?

Three short sentences with zero padding; the resource and scope come first and the failure condition follows. Nothing could be cut without losing 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 read-only list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, this is close to sufficient. The only real gap is that return content (movement fields, nextCursor presence) is left to the cursor hint rather than stated.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description's mention of 'cursor-paginated' reinforces how cursor and limit are meant to be chained, but adds no format or range detail beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List cash movements of a treasury account') plus the API version, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. The cash-only scope clause implicitly separates it from the sibling list_bank_movements, though it never names that sibling outright.

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 'cash-type treasury accounts only; bank and card account types return 404' sentence is a genuine when-not constraint. However, no alternative is named (e.g. 'for bank accounts use list_bank_movements'), so routing to the right sibling still requires inference from tool names.

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