List Money Movements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the result can be long on old budgets, and the tool returns budget moves rather than transactions. This helps the agent anticipate response size and semantic meaning.

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 sentences deliver purpose, semantic clarification, use case, and a routing recommendation to a sibling tool. There is no filler, and the most important definition is front-loaded.

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 tool's simple shape (one optional parameter, rich annotations, output schema present), the description covers everything needed to select and invoke it correctly. It explains what it returns, when to use it, and when to prefer an alternative, so no critical context is missing.

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%: the single optional budgetId parameter is documented with 'Budget ID (uses default if not provided)'. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but with complete schema coverage the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('List all money movements') and defines the resource as the history of budget re-allocations, including who, how much, from where, to where, and when. It explicitly distinguishes money movements from transactions and names the sibling tool get_money_movements_by_month, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit use case ('why did this category's assigned amount change'), explicitly excludes transactions, and recommends a specific alternative (get_money_movements_by_month) when a specific month is needed. This is exactly the kind of when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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