tally_get_fund_flow

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's failure behavior, the error code, the reasoning (avoiding judgments on source/application), and the read-only nature of the server. It even explains why the stub is registered rather than omitted, which is valuable 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?

The description is front-loaded with the critical 'NOT AVAILABLE' and failure fact, then organized into WHY and INSTEAD sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it appropriately sized for the complexity of the unsupported-operation message.

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 that this is a stub that always fails, the description is complete: it explains the failure, the alternatives, and the user's expected action. The parameters are irrelevant since the tool never succeeds, so no additional context is needed.

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%, with all three parameters fully described in the schema. The description does not add further parameter details, so baseline 3 is appropriate; it neither repeats nor enriches 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?

The description explicitly states this tool is 'NOT AVAILABLE' and 'always fails with TALLY_UNSUPPORTED_OPERATION', making its purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates itself from siblings like tally_get_balance_sheet by naming them as alternatives for the desired fund flow data.

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 'INSTEAD' section explicitly instructs to use tally_get_balance_sheet and tally_get_ledger_transactions, and the description says 'Do not call this expecting data. Go straight to the tools named above.' This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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