Get Money Movement Groups By Month

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description repeats 'Read-only'. It adds some useful context beyond annotations by explaining the groups are batched budget re-allocations and that the scope is a single month, but it does not disclose additional behaviors such as error cases or default budget handling.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus a one-word read-only statement. The key scope information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter schema, complete schema descriptions, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It also names the sibling relationship, which helps routing.

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 month and budgetId are already documented in the input schema. The description's 'for one month' aligns with the month parameter but adds little beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'get money movement groups' for a month. It also clarifies what these groups are ('batched budget re-allocations') and differentiates this tool from list_money_movement_groups by calling it the 'month-scoped view', so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explicitly identifies list_money_movement_groups as the broader sibling and frames this tool as its month-scoped counterpart, which conveys when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state a when-not condition or name other alternatives like get_money_movements_by_month, but the context is clear.

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