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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the report's shape (one column, operating/investing/financing lines with totals, net change, opening and closing cash), base currency, rounding to whole units, and the no-consolidation scope. With no output schema, this disclosure carries real weight.

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-loaded with the core identity and period before the return detail and the sibling routing. Dense but every clause is informative; the only minor cost is the long run-on return-shape sentence.

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 read-only reporting tool with no output schema, the description supplies the period requirement, the return contents, the currency/rounding assumptions, and the consolidation scope – everything an agent needs to call and interpret it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (id, dateFrom, dateTo) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the period concept but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full-coverage schemas.

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 (cash flow statement) plus the preparation method (indirect) and the required period, so an agent can distinguish it from other financial statements at a glance. It also explicitly names the sibling tools it is not.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives: get-profit-and-loss for income/expenses and get-balance-sheet for the position on a date. Clear context, but there is no explicit statement of when this tool itself is the wrong choice or any prerequisites (e.g., which companies are eligible).

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