List Money Movement Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear without the description. The description adds a useful join semantic via money_movement_group_id, but says nothing about scope, pagination, or what happens when budgetId is omitted.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The join instruction is front-loaded after the purpose statement, though the purpose sentence uses non-canonical terminology that slightly reduces clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input side is incomplete: the only parameter has no description anywhere and its effect is unspecified. For a list tool with a close sibling that groups by month, the lack of scope and alternative guidance is a meaningful gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry the full burden for the single budgetId parameter. It never mentions budgetId at all, and instead mentions money_movement_group_id, which is not an input parameter. An agent cannot tell from the definition whether budgetId is required, what it scopes, or whether omitting it lists across all budgets.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a resource framed as 'related budget reallocation batches', but it renames the actual resource ('money movement groups') rather than using the tool's terminology. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like list_money_movements or get_money_movement_groups_by_month.

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?

It explains how to join movements using money_movement_group_id, which is useful data-model context, but gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus list_money_movements or get_money_movement_groups_by_month. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the names alone.

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