Cash Flow Forecast

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the data source (unpaid receivables/payables) and output components (expected inflows, outflows, net flow, running balance), going beyond the structured 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?

A single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no filler or redundant 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?

Even without an output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (inflows, outflows, net flow, running balance). All parameters are covered by the schema, and the description covers the core business logic. Minor caveats about forecast estimation could be added, but not essential.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description only reinforces the 'group_by' concept by mentioning grouping by week or month, but adds no new semantics for the remaining parameters.

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 a specific action ('Generate cash flow forecast') with a specific resource ('unpaid receivables and payables') and defines the expected outputs (inflows, outflows, net flow, running balance). This distinguishes it from sibling reporting tools by focusing on forecast generation from unpaid items.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when a cash flow forecast based on unpaid receivables/payables is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection.

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