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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares 'Read-only', specifies that a non-member company_id yields 403, and explains default resolution for fiscal_year (latest FY with journal data; FY figures frozen at that year's end once past; aging/forecast anchored to today). Only rate-limit/performance behavior is absent, which is minor for a read-only report.

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?

Front-loads the headline purpose, then layers data sources, permissions, and the parameter default in dense but non-redundant sentences. Every clause carries information; slightly telegraphic phrasing but no filler.

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 and no annotations, the description is the sole carrier of context and covers what is returned, where it comes from, who may call it, and how the fiscal_year default resolves. It stops short of listing the individual KPIs, but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It gives rich semantics for fiscal_year (optionality, default resolution, as-of-year-end behavior) but explains company_id only indirectly via the 403 membership note, leaving its format/identity unclear. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (KPI report / snapshot) and enumerates exactly what it contains: snapshot KPIs plus a 13-week liquidity forecast drawn from the GL. It also names the underlying data sources (posted/reversed journal lines, gl_open_item, salary batches, VAT periods), which cleanly separates it from siblings like gl_balance_sheet or gl_profit_and_loss.

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?

Usage is implied by the content scope (a KPI/liquidity snapshot), but the description never says when to pick this over the many sibling reporting tools (get_financial_statements, gl_trial_balance, reconciliation_summary) or any exclusion conditions. An agent gets the gist but no explicit routing.

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