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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful transparency by explaining the two views and that the response echoes include_investment_deposits so the caller knows which view was generated, which helps set expectations for returned data.

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 opens with a one-line purpose, then systematically covers Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value, and the structure mirrors the schema, making it easy to parse.

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 report with no output schema, the description covers parameters, return contents, and a key behavioral flag. It doesn't explicitly address how this differs from similar reporting siblings, but the core invocation context is complete.

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%, and the description fully compensates: it specifies YYYY-MM-DD format and defaults for both dates aligned with schema defaults, and gives a detailed, nuanced explanation of include_investment_deposits with concrete use cases for each value.

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?

Clearly states 'Get cash flow analysis (income vs expenses),' naming a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling reports like get_income_statement or forecast_cash_flow, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 strong guidance on the include_investment_deposits parameter (disposable vs total wealth view) but gives no explicit direction on when to select this tool over sibling report tools. Usage context is implied by the title and description rather than stated.

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