Get Month Close

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

Beyond annotations that already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds meaningful detail: the returned confidence metric, the exact exception categories, the default period behavior, and the instruction to surface the message and offer to clear exceptions. This is strong behavioral transparency for a read-only tool.

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 dense but not bloated. It front-loads the core purpose and output, gives concrete usage triggers, states defaults, and ends with an actionable instruction. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool returns, and it does so thoroughly: close-confidence percentage plus all the key exception categories. It also covers default behavior and post-invocation guidance, so an agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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 sole parameter is already fully covered by the schema, which specifies the format (YYYY-MM-01) and the omit-for-last-complete-month behavior. The description repeats the default behavior but adds no new parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Check how closed a month's books are') and details the exact output: a close-confidence percentage plus the specific exception categories. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling tool 'month_close_summary', so it stops just short of full sibling distinction.

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?

Gives clear trigger phrases ('is my month done?', 'close my books', 'what's left for May?') and a general close/period-end rule, plus the default to the last complete month. It does not mention when not to use this tool or name an alternative, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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