list_money_movement_groups

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose traits. It implies read-only (list), and explains exclude_fields default behavior. However, it does not explicitly state idempotency, rate limits, or auth needs. The reference to FIELDS.md is external and may not be accessible.

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: one line for purpose, then bulleted args. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description does not define 'money movement group' or mention ordering/pagination. The parameter explanations are complete, but broader context is lacking.

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 coverage is 0%, so description carries full burden. It explains both parameters thoroughly: plan_id directs to list_plans; exclude_fields details default, [] behavior, and custom override. This adds significant meaning 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 'List all money movement groups in a plan,' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_money_movements' (individual movements) and 'get_money_movement_groups_for_month' (month-scoped).

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 good parameter-level guidance (use list_plans for plan_id, explain exclude_fields behavior) but lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives. No mention of when not to use this tool or comparison to sibling list/get tools.

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