Cash-flow forecast

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's value is the provenance detail: the forecast derives from open receivables/payables and starts from the last imported bank balance, with overdue amounts broken out separately. That data-source dependency (accuracy hinges on the last import) is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs the source data, time grouping, and the overdue-separation trait with no filler. The trailing phrase 'with overdue amounts apart' is slightly awkward but still earns its place.

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, so the description should carry more about the returned shape, and it leaves open what happens when neither farm_id nor group_id is supplied (all params optional) and what the default horizon/granularity are. The annotations cover the safety profile, so this is adequate but with visible gaps.

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 75%, and the schema already spells out farm_id/group_id sourcing and horizon bounds. The description's 'by week or month' loosely maps to the undescribed granularity enum, but it adds no defaults, no 'at least one of farm_id/group_id is required' note, and no format guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (cash-flow forecast) along with the exact computation basis: expected in/out from open receivables and payables, seeded by the last imported bank balance. This is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like finance_dashboard or bank_movements, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this versus treasury_dues, finance_dashboard, or budget_variance, and no guidance on choosing granularity or horizon. Usage is only implied by the tool's nature as a forward-looking projection.

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