Cashflow Get Cashflow Breakdown

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, not destructive), so the description needs to add behavioral context. It adds none: no mention of default grouping, date range semantics, output modes, or filtering behavior. It doesn't contradict the annotations, but it provides no extra transparency.

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 text is short, but it is under-specified rather than concisely structured. A single vague phrase does not earn its place as a helpful description; it reads as a stub. There is no front-loaded useful detail to outweigh the brevity.

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 tool has 7 parameters, 3 required, a low schema coverage, and no output schema. The description is far too minimal to be complete: it doesn't explain what the breakdown returns, how direction and group_by interact, or what filters/fields affect. An agent has essentially no support beyond the schema and names.

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 29%, with descriptions only on fields and output_mode. The description supplies no parameter semantics, so it fails to compensate for the missing context on start_date, end_date, direction, group_by, and filters. Parameter names and enum values provide some inherent clarity, which prevents a 1, but the description itself adds zero meaning.

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 'Get cashflow breakdown' essentially restates the tool's name and title without adding meaning. 'Breakdown' is undefined and the description fails to differentiate this from cashflow_get_cashflow_summary or cashflow_get_cashflow_trends. It offers nc more value than the resource name itself.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternates. The description doesn't mention the sibling cashflow tools or any conditions that would favor a breakdown over a summary or trends. An agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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