Manager dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: amounts are integer euro cents and the dashboard covers the last three campaigns. It does not mention auth needs, rate limits, or caching, so it is incremental rather than rich.

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 main payload is front-loaded ('Money of a farm or a whole group for one campaign'), and the dense category enumeration is justified because no output schema exists to convey the return shape. It is a single long sentence that could be split, but little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, describing the returned breakdowns and units is appropriate and largely complete; parameters are fully covered by the schema and safety by annotations. The main gap is the absence of any routing guidance to sibling financial tools, which is a usage rather than a completeness defect.

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 100%, so all four parameters (crop, farm_id, campaign, group_id) are already documented including formats and defaults. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specifies the exact scope and content: financial figures for a farm or group for one campaign, broken down by month, category, worker/machine hour, and margin per hectare. This is specific enough to distinguish it from financial siblings like budget_variance or campaign_forecast. However, it reads as an enumeration of return values rather than stating what the tool does as an action, keeping it out of the 5 range.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite many financial siblings (budget_variance, campaign_forecast, cash_flow, group_overview). The parameter semantics imply filtering by farm/group/campaign, but the agent must infer when this dashboard is the right choice versus the other financial tools.

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