rollover_unused

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

The description includes a detailed behavioral transparency section covering read-only, idempotency, rate limits, and error handling. However, these details directly contradict the tool's stated purpose of rolling over budget, creating confusion rather than clarity.

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 structured with clear sections but is overly long and contains redundancy (e.g., Behavioral Transparency repeated in two places). Some sentences could be merged or removed without losing information.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description should explain return values and how the tool differs from siblings. It lacks output description and the core functionality is ambiguously presented, making it incomplete for accurate invocation.

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?

Parameter descriptions are generic and uninformative ('The source month to analyze or process'). They add minimal value beyond the schema titles and fail to specify format, constraints, or how each parameter is used in the rollover/analysis context.

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 states 'Rollover unused budget to next month' but then claims the tool is read-only and produces analysis output without modifying external systems. This contradiction obscures the actual purpose—whether it performs a rollover action or merely analyzes potential rollovers.

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 generic guidance ('use for structured analysis') and an exclusion ('not for real-time production decisions'), but fails to differentiate from siblings like get_analytics or get_budget_status. No specific context on when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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