get_money_movement_groups_for_month

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains parameter behavior (e.g., default exclude list from FIELDS.md) but does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The purpose implies a read operation, but explicit safety traits are absent.

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 concise, with a clear main sentence followed by structured argument details. Every sentence adds value, and the format (using Args:) is easy to parse. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description covers parameter usage well and mentions external documentation (FIELDS.md). It doesn't discuss pagination or ordering, which might be relevant for 'all' groups, but this is a minor 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 compensate. It adds significant meaning: month format ('YYYY-MM-DD or 'current''), plan_id reference (how to look it up), and detailed exclude_fields behavior (default, empty list, custom list). This fully clarifies parameter semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 'Get all money movement groups for a specific month,' specifying the verb 'get,' the resource 'money movement groups,' and the scope 'for a specific month.' This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_money_movements_for_month' (which likely fetches individual movements) and 'list_money_movement_groups' (which probably lists all groups without date filtering).

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 explains parameter usage (e.g., month format, how to find plan_id, exclude_fields behavior) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. Context is implied by the name and description, but no exclusions or when-not-to-use information is given.

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