get_cash_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses 'Read-only report,' which rules out mutations and clarifies the safety profile, but it adds no further context such as required permissions, data freshness, or whether inactive accounts are included.

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 with zero waste: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by a brief safety note. Every phrase 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 report with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and read-only nature adequately. It could mention the shape of the returned cash position (e.g., balances by account), but the phrase 'across GL cash accounts and bank accounts' implies that breakdown.

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%, so the asOfDate parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description mirrors this with 'as of a date' but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('current cash position'), scope ('across GL cash accounts and bank accounts'), and timing ('as of a date'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_bank_account (single account) and get_trial_balance (full ledger), but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_trial_balance, get_bank_account, or search_bank_transactions. The 'Read-only report' phrase signals safety but not selection criteria or exclusions.

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