finance_get_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the sequencing precondition but says nothing about what happens if the run was not verified, whether summaries are cached/persisted, or permissions required.

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 short clause with the verb and resource front-loaded and no redundant phrasing. It is arguably too terse given the undocumented parameter, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

With one required param, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, an agent still cannot tell what run_id should be or what a 'scenario summary' contains. The read-only tool needs little safety context, but key invocation and return information is absent.

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 is exactly one required parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. 'the run' only loosely suggests run_id ties to a prior run/verify cycle; it never states the expected id format, where it comes from, or that it is required.

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 pairs the verb 'Read' with a specific resource, 'saved scenario summaries', and adds a scoping condition ('after verifying the run'), so it is not a tautology of the tool name. It does not name any sibling, but the resource itself separates it from finance_run/finance_validate/finance_verify.

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 phrase 'after verifying the run' gives an explicit precondition that implies finance_verify must precede this call, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming the alternative tools, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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