get_money_movements_for_month

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and explains the main behavior: retrieving all money movements for a month. It details the exclude_fields behavior and mentions the default exclude list, but does not cover error handling or pagination (though output schema exists).

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 well-structured with a summary line followed by parameter details. Each sentence adds value, though slightly longer than minimal due to necessary parameter clarifications.

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 no annotations but an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and usage adequately for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Minor omissions like error cases are acceptable.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning: month format and 'current' option, plan_id source, and exclude_fields usage including default, all-fields, and custom overrides.

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 movements for a specific month,' providing a specific verb and resource with a clear constraint. It distinguishes from siblings like list_money_movements and get_money_movement_groups_for_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?

The description provides context on how to use month, plan_id, and exclude_fields, including referencing list_plans for plan_id and FIELDS.md for default excludes. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but offers sufficient guidance.

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