ledger_tail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, how rows are ordered, whether there are side effects, or what happens with an invalid object id. It only describes the shape of the returned data.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main output (last N ledger rows) and then states the optional filter. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy.

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?

For a tool with no annotationsinations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not mention ordering, return shape beyond field names, potential errors, or how this tool relates to the sibling grant_status and grant_discharge tools, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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%, but the description does clarify that n refers to the number of rows and object_id is an optional filter for a single object. It does not explain what kind of object_id is expected or how filtering interacts with the last N rows, leaving some ambiguity.

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 identifies the resource (ledger rows), the fields included (intent, result, outcome), and an optional filter (object id), which makes the core purpose clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', and does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools by name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus grant_status or grant_dischargeaging. The phrase 'optionally for one object id' describes a parameter behavior, not a use case or exclusion, leaving tool selection to inference.

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