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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context about 'honest burn including paying yourself' and the two runway types, which explains the calculation's intent. However, it doesn't mention output format, assumptions, or any edge cases (e.g., negative cash, missing income), leaving gaps for an agent.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key distinction between hard and working runway. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must explain the output and how to interpret results. It only explains the high-level concept but doesn't state that the output is likely a number of months (or two numbers), nor does it mention required parameters or input validation. This is adequate but not complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 low (20%), so the description must compensate. It indirectly references parameters: 'paying yourself' maps to owner_draw, 'committed income' to monthly_income_committed, and 'honest burn' to monthly_expenses. This adds meaning, but not every parameter is explicitly tied, and the description doesn't clarify how required vs optional fields interact.

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 computes months of cash runway for a household or freelance practice, and distinguishes between hard and working runway. It implies a calculation and is distinct from sibling tools like debt_avalanche_plan or subscription_audit. However, it doesn't use an explicit verb like 'calculate' or 'compute', so it's slightly less direct.

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 specifies the target audience ('household or freelance practice') and explains the concept of hard vs working runway, giving some context on when it would be relevant. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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