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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral scope: it reports monthly aggregates, specifies included financial categories, and states that profile details are excluded. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first sentence front-loads the resource and key contents, and the second provides exclusions and routes to alternatives. Every part 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?

For a parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it says what data is returned, what is intentionally omitted, and which sibling tools cover the omitted data. An agent can select and invoke this tool correctly without needing more context.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline 4 for parameterless tools applies, and the description appropriately focuses on output scope rather than parameters.

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 names a specific resource (financial summary) and a clear verb ('get'), then enumerates the exact contents: per-month earnings, profit, cashflow, expense/income rollups, and inventory movement. It also explicitly differentiates itself from get_business_profile and get_business_overview, so an agent can distinguish it from nearby siblings.

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 explicitly states what this tool does not include ('Profile details are not included') and names the alternatives: get_business_profile for profile details and get_business_overview for both in one call. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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