tax_get_quick_cash_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by listing the dashboard's contents (income/VAT declarations, comparison card, etc.), but does not disclose additional traits like response size, pagination, or potential latency. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides moderate added value.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main action and then lists key elements. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only dashboard tool. The inclusion of Georgian text adds length but is a translation; overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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 is read-only with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of the dashboard contents. However, it lacks details on the output format, structure, or how the data is presented, which would help an agent interpret the response. More completeness on the expected return value could improve usability.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is effectively 100% (no properties). Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high. The description adds no parameter semantics as there are none to describe. This score reflects adequate handling given the parameterless nature.

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 'Get financial dashboard' and lists specific elements (income/VAT declarations, comparison card, salary/waybill/invoice monthly), making the purpose clear. However, the term 'financial dashboard' is somewhat generic and could be more precise, and the inclusion of Georgian text may not aid English-speaking agents. It distinguishes from siblings by indicating aggregation, but not sharply.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many individual get_ tools (e.g., tax_get_income_amount, tax_get_waybill_month_amount). The description does not specify any prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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