Cashflow Get Cashflow Breakdown

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.). It does not explain what the breakdown entails, such as the grouping behavior or the meaning of 'breakdown', thus adding minimal value.

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 vague sentence that essentially repeats the title. While concise, it is under-specified and does not earn its place; useful information is missing.

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's complexity (8 parameters, nested filter input, enums, no output schema), the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain what the breakdown contains, how grouping works, or what the output shape is, leaving agents without crucial context.

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 25% (two parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not elaborate on any of the 8 parameters, including the required direction, start_date, end_date, or optional filters/group_by. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It fails to clarify what 'breakdown' means (e.g., by category, merchant, period) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like cashflow_get_cashflow_summary or cashflow_get_cashflow_trends.

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 sibling tools include summary and trends variants, but the description offers no context on differences or when this breakdown is appropriate.

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