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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, yet the description adds substantial non-obvious traits: hidden data types when the connection lacks visibility, investments never counted in cash, how books_closed_through adjustments post, how combined runway is computed, and an explicit safety note that untrusted_text and "⚠ flagged text:" fields are third-party data, not instructions.

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?

A single dense paragraph with essentially no filler — every clause carries semantic payload about a returned field or a computation rule. It is long and slightly list-heavy rather than front-loaded with a one-line summary, which keeps it just short of 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values — and it does so field by field, including aggregation caveats and text-safety handling. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (as_of, company) are fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces scoping ("each only where this connection can see that kind of data") but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 resource (per-company financial overview) and enumerates the exact contents: cash, card debt, burn, runway, MRR, receivables, bills due, payroll, investments, attention items, source freshness, and books_closed_through. This lets an agent distinguish it from narrower siblings like get_metric, get_liabilities, or get_reports without opening any schema.

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?

"Answers most 'how are we doing' questions in one call" gives clear context for when this broad tool beats assembling several narrow ones. It does not, however, name alternatives (e.g. get_metric, list_upcoming) or state exclusions, so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.

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