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

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations, disclosing that values are estimates, what happens when channel data is unavailable or the API fails, that estimates are deliberately not counted in the dip, and that amounts are integer cents. It also explains the 'assumptions' list and the treatment of owner advances as liabilities, making the tool's behavior highly transparent.

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 long and dense, but nearly every sentence adds necessary domain context: treatment of overdue amounts, channel unsettled pools, payroll components, remittance timing, and units. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands into behavioral specifics. It could be tighter with bulleted structure, but the verbosity is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully covers return values (week-by-week inflows/outflows/closing balance, dip, assumptions list), units, data sources, and edge cases such as disconnected or lapsed channel access. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results 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?

The input schema is empty, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. There are no parameters to document; the description instead explains the forecast's inputs implicitly from the books. No additional parameter-level detail is needed beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 identifies this as an 8-week cash-flow forecast built from bookkeeping data, with a specific scope: opening liquid balances, scheduled inflows, and known/estimated outflows. It also distinguishes itself from related reporting tools by emphasizing it is 'not a model' and by explaining what is deliberately excluded or reported separately.

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 gives strong context for when to rely on this forecast: it states what is included, what is excluded (owner advances, overdue receivables, unsettled channel money), and how to treat those exclusions as stated upside. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or say 'use this when you need X, not Y', but the inclusion/exclusion logic effectively guides selection.

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