Cash Flow Forecast

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds behavioral details: returns day-by-day projection, running balance, and a flag for the lowest point. It also mentions that starting_balance isn't in the CSV, which is useful context.

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 well-structured sentences plus a note. Every sentence is meaningful, front-loaded with purpose, and no wasted words.

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's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains purpose, parameters, return structure, and a key limitation. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 50% (only starting_balance has description). The description reinforces parameter meanings and adds the important clarification that starting_balance is not present in the CSV, which is not in the schema. This adds value beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool projects cash flow over N days using recurring bills and income. The verb 'project' and resource 'cash flow' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from siblings like finance_spending_by_category or finance_debt_payoff_plan.

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?

Provides a key usage guideline about passing a real starting_balance for accuracy. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, the context is clear and the note adds practical value.

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