get_contract_to_cash_run

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

The annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description does not contradict them. However, it adds little beyond the annotations, such as potential side effects or return behavior.

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 concise sentence, with no redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

There is no output schema and the description does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., the projection data) or any edge cases like missing runs. The minimal context may be sufficient for a simple read, but it lacks completeness.

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 provides no descriptions for the three parameters (company_ref, project_ref, run_ref). The description does not explain their meaning or how they relate to the lifecycle projection, so parameter semantics are left completely unspecified.

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 (Read) and the resource (Contract-to-Cash lifecycle projection). It is specific enough to distinguish the tool's primary function, though it does not name sibling alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other get_ tools. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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