get_finance_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the obvious read intent of 'Get.' There is no mention of data sources, potential latency, permission requirements, or return format. The description adds minimal context beyond the tool name.

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 a single, tight sentence that immediately conveys the core function. There is no redundant wording or filler, and the key detail ('monthly revenue vs expenses') is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential idea but omits useful details like the structure of the breakdown (e.g., per-month keys, whether net amounts are included) or behavior for empty/future years. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description could do more, but it is not severely 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?

The schema already defines the 'year' parameter with a description and default value (100% coverage). The description's phrase 'for a given year' simply reinforces the parameter's purpose but adds no additional syntax, range, or format guidance. Given high schema coverage, a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the financial overview — monthly revenue vs expenses breakdown for a given year.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the detail about monthly revenue vs expenses distinguishes it from finance siblings like get_vat_summary or list_invoices.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of higher-level aggregation vs. detailed invoice data or any exclusions. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from sibling tool names.

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