Record cost entry

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by stating 'Writes directly to the holding's cost ledger' (confirming write operation) and characterizes costs as 'low-risk records'. Explains that tax_deductible feeds true-return and tax calculations. No contradictions with annotations.

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, front-loaded with purpose and examples. Every sentence adds unique value: purpose/examples, behavioral context (direct ledger, risk), and tax impact. No wasted words.

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 8 parameters, 5 required, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, examples, ledger behavior, low-risk nature, and tax implication. Could mention that the record is immediately persisted, but overall complete for its complexity.

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 88%, so baseline is 3. Description adds meaning by reinforcing 'Amounts in AUD' and explaining that tax_deductible feeds fund calculations. Provides examples for cost_type. Adds context beyond schema without duplicating it.

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?

Description clearly states the tool records a holding-level cost/expense for SMSF, with specific examples (property rates, insurance, management fees). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like record_income and record_trade by noting costs go directly to the ledger while others use proposals.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use (holding-level costs) and contrasts with trades/income that use proposals. Mentions tax_deductible affects calculations. Does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use, but the contrast is sufficient.

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