list_additional_incomes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it clarifies that the tool returns non-invoice entries including expenses despite the 'incomes' name, discloses the specific returned fields, and states how the period can be bounded. This goes beyond the structured 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?

Four dense sentences with no filler. The key scope distinction is front-loaded, the returned fields are listed concisely, and the VAT context is a single useful closing sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 operation with three optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It communicates the resource scope, return fields, and date-filtering behavior. It does not describe pagination behavior or sort order, but those are not critical for a simple list tool and are partially covered by the page parameter in the schema.

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% for all three parameters, so the schema already documents page, filter_from, and filter_to. The description reinforces filter_from/filter_to as period bounds but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource ('List additional incomes and expenses recorded in Quipu') and immediately distinguishes its scope from invoices: 'everything that is not an issued invoice'. Concrete examples (supplier bills, purchases, tickets) make the resource unambiguous even though the tool name could be misleading.

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 clearly defines what this tool covers and positions it as 'the input-VAT side needed to work out what a quarter actually owes.' This gives strong contextual guidance, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as list_invoices or get_tax_summary, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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