Flujo de caja anual

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by disclosing the content structure (month-by-month and categories like income, expenses, taxes, financing), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist.

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?

A single, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose ('flujo de caja') and then clarifies the granularity and content.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining the return structure (monthly, with income/expenses/taxes/financing). It does not mention default year behavior or exact response format, but the schema covers the year parameter, making the description sufficient for a simple tool.

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 schema description covers 100% of the single parameter 'anio' with a clear description and range. Since the tool description does not add further parameter semantics, it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool provides annual cash flow broken down month by month, specifying the categories (income, expenses, taxes, financing). The verb 'get' in the name and 'flujo de caja' identify a distinct resource, setting it apart from sibling tools focused on invoices, tax forms, or KPIs.

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 clear context that this tool is for retrieving annual cash flow data, and the sibling tool names suggest alternative financial queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others or mention exclusions, so it misses the top score.

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