report_combined

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description implicitly indicates that this tool is a read-only reporting function by stating it returns trends and combining two reports. It does not mention any destructive or mutating behavior, which is appropriate for a reporting tool.

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 concise with four front-loaded sentences: it states the core functionality, explains equivalence to sibling calls, provides concrete example queries, and suggests a complementary tool. Every sentence adds value and is well-structured.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, and relationship to siblings. However, it does not describe the return format or structure, which would be helpful for an agent expecting output.

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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter 'limit' with a description of 'Max number of periods per report (default: 36)'. The description only restates that the same limit applies, adding no new semantic value beyond the schema.

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 purpose: 'Both balance sheet and cash flow trends in one call.' It specifies that it is equivalent to calling report_balance and report_flow with the same limit, effectively distinguishing it from those sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it is the 'primary entry point for wealth-trajectory questions' and contrasts with using portfolio value alone. It also suggests pairing with show_snapshot for a market-driven slice, offering clear alternatives.

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