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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by mentioning 'Mirrors what the Market Hub shows' and the stocks-only restriction. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no redundant words. Each phrase ('cash generated and used across operating, investing and financing', 'Mirrors what the Market Hub shows', 'Stocks only') 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 simple read-only financial data tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and a point of reference (Market Hub). The schema provides parameter detail and annotations cover safety; no critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it appropriately.

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%, with all three parameters (ticker, periods, frequency) fully documented. The description adds little beyond reiterating 'Stocks only,' which is already in the ticker parameter, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 the tool's function: 'Cash flow statement for a stock' and specifies the three components (operating, investing, financing). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_balance_sheet and get_income_statement by name and scope, and adds 'Stocks only' to exclude ETFs/crypto.

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?

Provides clear context: use for stock cash flow data, and explicitly excludes non-stocks with 'Stocks only.' It does not name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it.

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