Account projection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. It adds 'Requires projectionstart' and 'Supports period, frequency and filter,' but these are mostly parameter capabilities rather than deeper behavioral traits like return format or edge cases. Given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Return the projection figure...'). It includes key requirements and supported options with no unnecessary words, earning a perfect score for structure.

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?

While the schema covers all parameters in detail, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the returned figure looks like or how it behaves in edge cases. For a tool with 7 parameters and domain-specific concepts like 'projectionstart', the description is minimal but not fully inadequate, as it does highlight required and supported parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description only repeats parameter names ('projectionstart', 'period', 'frequency', 'filter') without adding syntax, formatting, or relationships beyond the schema. It does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.

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 returns a projection figure for an account, group, or balance class, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like banana_balance (balance) and banana_budget (budget). The mention of 'Requires projectionstart' further specifies the tool's unique purpose.

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 implies usage for projection figures but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like banana_balance or banana_vat_projection. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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