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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, confirming no destructive behavior. The description adds value by detailing the output (forecast and time-saving metric), but does not disclose limitations like data recency or recalculation frequency. No contradiction with annotations.

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 paragraph that efficiently front-loads the core purpose and then lists the included data points. It is appropriately sized—no wasted sentences—though a bulleted list might improve scannability without adding length.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description provides all necessary context: the forecast scope, included metrics, and even a note on the value context. It fully equips an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has no parameters, so baseline is 4. No parameter information is needed, and the description does not attempt to add any, which is appropriate.

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 clearly states it provides a '30-day cash flow forecast with weekly breakdown' and enumerates specific financial metrics (revenue, outstanding invoices, overdue invoices, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like analytics.financials or analytics.dashboard which serve broader analytical purposes.

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 calls out its use for answering questions like 'Can I afford to hire?' or 'How's my cash flow?', providing clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling list offers other analytics tools that might be used for different financial questions.

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