three_statement_modeling__retained_earnings_rollforward

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

With no annotations and no description of behavior, the agent cannot infer whether this is a read-only calculation, a data mutation, or requires any permissions. The description is absent.

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 extremely short but at the cost of being underspecified. It is not concise in a helpful way; it fails to convey essential 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?

For a financial calculation tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description lacks any explanation of what the tool computes, what the return value is (likely ending retained earnings), or any edge cases.

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 has 0% description coverage and the tool description adds no meaning. The parameter names (opening_re, net_income, dividends) are self-explanatory but the description does not clarify their relationship or units.

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 is a tautology, simply restating the tool name 'retained_earnings_rollforward' without explaining that it calculates ending retained earnings as opening + net income - dividends. It fails to specify the verb ('computes', 'calculates') or the output.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling three-statement tools like balance_check or cash_ties. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives.

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