accounting.cashflow_operating

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: no rounding occurs, amounts are Decimal strings, and the sign convention (increases as positive) warns of a silent error mode if violated.

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?

Four sentences ordered as purpose, formula, numeric format, then sign convention. The critical sign warning is placed last but is stated in one tight sentence, and no sentence restates the tool name or title without adding 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description supplies the formula, precision rule, and sign semantics needed for an 8-parameter computation tool. The one omission is any mention of change_in_other_wc, leaving that parameter to be inferred from schema defaults.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does: it enumerates net income, depreciation, amortization, other non-cash items, receivables, inventory, and payables, and defines the sign direction for each change term. Only change_in_other_wc is left unaddressed, a minor gap given how much is otherwise covered.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('간접법 영업활동현금흐름(CFO)을 계산한다') and pins down the method (indirect method), which distinguishes it from siblings like accounting.income_statement or accounting.balance. An agent can immediately tell this is a single-purpose calculation 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?

The phrase '간접법' implicitly scopes usage to indirect-method CFO computation, but the description never states when to choose this over building the same figure via accounting.income_statement or accounting.balance, nor does it name any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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