wafeq_revenue_recognitions_preview_create

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses a subtle behavioral trait: despite being a POST, it is a simulation that 'returns the events that WOULD be generated and writes nothing to the ledger.' This preempts the natural confusion an agent would have about a POST being read-only, and states the no-side-effects guarantee explicitly.

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 structure is strong: a front-loaded badge line with the endpoint, a one-line summary, then a fuller explanation. However, the third and fourth paragraphs are somewhat redundant — both state that it previews events that 'WOULD be generated' without creating a recognition — so the description could be tightened by one sentence.

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?

The core behavior, side-effect safety, and required body input are adequately conveyed, but with no output schema the return shape is only vaguely hinted as 'events that WOULD be generated.' The unexplained top-level filter parameters and lack of distinction from the sibling wafeq_revenue_recognitions_preview_end_early_create leave moderate gaps for an agent deciding how to call this correctly.

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 only 25%, so the description carries a burden it does not meet — it contains zero parameter-level guidance. The required nested 'body' fields are mostly documented in the schema, but the top-level filter parameters (status__in, start_date_before, end_date_after, etc.) are undocumented and confusing for a preview endpoint; the description neither clarifies nor warns that they look like list filters.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination ('previewing the revenue recognition events') and explicitly contrasts with actual creation ('without creating a revenue recognition', 'writes nothing to the ledger'). The leading '🟢 READ-ONLY · preview / simulation' badge plus the endpoint path immediately distinguishes this from sibling write tools like wafeq_revenue_recognitions_end_early_create and read tools like wafeq_revenue_recognitions_list.

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 conveys when to use the tool: when the agent wants to simulate what recognition events would be generated before committing. The repeated emphasis on 'simulation' and 'writes nothing to the ledger' implicitly tells the agent not to use this when actual ledger effects are desired, but it never names an explicit alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition.

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