get_cashflow_statement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only implies a read-style report retrieval. It doesn't explain default date-range behavior, what the cash-vs-accrual basis changes, what the three boolean filters (noneZero, showZero, noneTransactions) do, or what the output contains.

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 single sentence is compact and front-loaded with the verb, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It states the core purpose without wasting words, yet fails to carry any of the operational detail the tool needs.

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?

An 8-parameter report tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation is completely underserved by a one-line description. An agent cannot determine the effect of the basis switch, the filters, or the accountIds, nor what the returned report looks like.

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 only 25% (fromDate/toDate), and the description adds zero parameter meaning. Six of eight parameters, including the ambiguous noneZero/showZero/noneTransactions flags, are left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('the cashflow statement report'), so an agent knows what action to expect. However, it does nothing to set the cash flow report apart from sibling report tools like get_profit_loss, get_balance_sheet, or get_trial_balance, so it cannot earn a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this report complements profit/loss, balance sheet, trial balance, or general ledger reports, and gives no exclusions or conditions.

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