finance_forecasting

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal whether the tool is read-only or writes forecast data, nor does it mention required permissions, side effects, rate limits, or state changes. The term 'build' is ambiguous regarding persistence.

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 highly concise: one summary sentence followed by a structured Args block. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and the information is front-loaded for quick scanning.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, inputs, and outputs adequately given the presence of an output schema (handling return values). However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., whether ledger data must be pre-loaded) and does not explain the 'rolling' concept, leaving some contextual gaps for a complex forecasting 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must supplement. It provides meaningful context for all four parameters: 'message' is explained as a free-text objective, 'horizon_months' includes default, 'scenario' lists valid options (base, bull, bear, custom), and 'driver_overrides' gives an example format. This adds substantial value beyond raw type information.

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 action ('Build a rolling cash and P&L forecast'), the data sources ('ledger data and company drivers'), and the output ('month-by-month projection, scenario comparisons, written interpretation'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'finance_forecast_interpretation' (interpretation only) and 'finance_forecast_sensitivity' (sensitivity analysis) by specifying the full forecasting model construction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'finance_automl_forecast', 'finance_forecast_sensitivity', or 'finance_forecast_interpretation'. The description lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., ledger data availability) or conditions that make this tool preferable.

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