Cash Flow Report

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and destructiveHint: false. The description adds behavioral details like null handling for avg_days_to_payment and forecasting logic for projected_income_30d, which go beyond annotations.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and lists return values concisely without extraneous information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully enumerates all return fields (period, totals, rates, breakdowns) and includes handling for null values and forecast logic, making it complete for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100% with empty properties), so baseline is 4. The description correctly states 'Takes no input,' which is sufficient.

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 'Generate a portfolio-wide cash flow summary across all invoices' with specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('cash flow summary'), and the listed return fields distinguish it from sibling tools like client_manage or invoice_list.

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 explicitly says 'Takes no input — always reports on the current full dataset. Ideal for dashboards and monthly close,' providing clear context and when-to-use guidance without needing alternatives.

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