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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the data scope (burn rate windows, runway) but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. Given annotations carry the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate for the added 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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary output (current bank balance) and then lists the secondary metrics. There is no redundant or filler text; every clause conveys essential information about the tool's output.

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 an optional parameter, a full output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to invoke it. The parameter's optionality and defaults are in the schema, and the output schema defines return values, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the default behavior and how the largest window affects burn history aggregation. The description mentions '30/60/90 days' but does not name or explain the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 retrieves the current bank balance, burn rate over 30/60/90 days, and projected runway in days. This is a specific, action-oriented verb ('Get') with a clear resource and distinct outputs, differentiating it from sibling tools like get_pnl_summary or get_cac_payback which focus on other financial metrics.

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 implies usage context (financial health check) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. Since it is a distinct getter for bank data among many getters, the purpose itself provides implied guidance, but the lack of explicit comparison or alternative routing leaves some ambiguity.

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