finance_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the tool persists a run that is 'private' and 'immutable', which tells the agent an artifact is created and not overwritten. It still omits idempotency, permissions, and cost/runtime characteristics.

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, front-loaded sentence split by a semicolon into compute and persist clauses. No filler, though the second clause is terse enough that it could be slightly clearer about what is saved.

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 no output schema, a nested required object parameter, and a 50%-covered schema, the description leaves gaps: it never explains what a run returns (run id? summary?) or where the 'documented input contract' lives. Adequate but incomplete for a compute-and-persist tool of this shape.

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 coverage is 50%, so the description should compensate more than it does. It loosely maps 'named scenarios' to the scenario enum and 'linked monthly statements' to the model, but the required nested 'model' object is only deferred to an unspecified 'documented input contract' that is not provided here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') with concrete resources ('linked monthly statements', 'named scenarios') plus a stated side effect ('save a private immutable run'). An agent can tell this is the compute/execute step, distinct from finance_validate or finance_verify, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'run' and 'calculate' versus siblings named validate/verify/sensitivity/get_summary lets an agent infer this is the execution step, but no explicit when-to-use, ordering, or prerequisite (e.g., must validate first) is stated.

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