how_much_money

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it provides a 'snapshot for a date range,' which is useful context. It does not describe return format or aggregation details, but the output schema exists and annotations carry the burden.

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 concise, with example questions front-loaded to quickly convey intent. It is two sentences long and every part adds value. It could be slightly more structured, but it avoids unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and strong annotations, the description is mostly adequate for a simple financial summary. However, parameter semantics are completely unexplained, and with many financial sibling tools, more context on what 'financial summary' includes (e.g., revenue, expenses, profit) would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%; the three parameters (days, end_date, start_date) have no descriptions. The description only mentions 'date range' but does not explain how days relates to start/end dates or the expected date formats. Since the description must compensate for the schema gap, this is insufficient.

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 tool's purpose: answering revenue/financial questions with a 'financial summary snapshot for a date range.' This is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_financial_summary,' which may serve a similar purpose.

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 example questions imply when to use this tool (when users ask about revenue or money made), but there are no explicit when-not-to-use instructions or references to alternatives like 'get_financial_summary' or 'how_is_business_doing.' Guidance is implied through examples rather than stated.

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