merit_list_gl_batches_full

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

With no annotations, the description carries a heavier burden, and it does disclose key behaviors: it is a one-call endpoint that can include entries and cost allocations, and the default-off behavior for optional flags. It does not disclose pagination, output shape, or side effects, but it is a list operation and the 'max 31 days' constraint adds concrete behavioral context.

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 very short and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the endpoint path and the two most important operational details (31-day limit, default flags). Every sentence contributes useful information and nothing is wasted.

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 list operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the essentials: what it returns (batches with entries/cost allocations), the one-call value, the date limit, and default flag behavior. It could mention response shape or error behavior, but the tool is relatively simple and the key calling decisions are covered.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the period constraint is max 31 days and that withLines/withCostAlloc default off when omitted, which maps directly to parameter behavior. It does not add a usage example, but it exceeds the baseline by interpreting the parameter options.

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 states a specific action ('List Merit Aktiva GL batches with entries and cost allocations in one call') and identifies the endpoint (POST /api/v1/GetGLBatchesFull). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the 'full' one-call behavior and the optional includes, which sets it apart from merit_list_gl_batches and merit_get_gl_batch.

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 clearly states the period constraint ('Period max 31 days') and notes that withLines/withCostAlloc default off when omitted, which helps an agent decide input values. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use X instead', but the context makes the intended use clear relative to the sibling GL batch tools.

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