Financial Summary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It conveys a read-only nature through 'See' and indicates scope ('for the fiscal year') and the dashboard's focus on money movement, but it does not disclose whether the data is live, aggregated, or dependent on setup/recorded transactions, nor does it describe response format.

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?

Two sentences with the key content front-loaded; every phrase adds value. It is appropriately brief for a dashboard summary tool.

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 specifies the three report sections it returns and the fiscal-year scope, which is sufficient given the simple optional-parameter schema. However, without an output schema, it does not clarify presentation format or how the sections are computed, and it omits any behavior around default values or prerequisites, making it slightly incomplete.

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?

Both parameters (quarter, fiscal_year) already have schema descriptions covering 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail; it only repeats the fiscal-year scoping already present in the schema.

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 uses a specific viewing verb ('See') and lists concrete resources (income statement, balance overview, GST position), clearly distinguishing this dashboard from transaction-recording and calculation siblings. The phrase 'bookkeeping dashboard' reinforces its role as an aggregating overview.

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 identifies this as the 'bookkeeping dashboard' and frames it as the place to see where money is going, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention any alternative tools or exclusions, such as when to prefer detailed reports like chart_of_accounts or tax calculations.

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