finance_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context — that it checks opening balance and provenance, and that it does not silently patch missing inputs ('Missing inputs remain errors') — but it says nothing about how failures are surfaced or whether validation halts a pipeline.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The second sentence is slightly oblique in phrasing ('Missing inputs remain errors') but still earns its place by conveying non-repair behavior.

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?

For a one-parameter validation tool whose annotations cover safety and whose only param is fully documented in the schema, the description covers the essentials. The remaining gap is that, with no output schema, it never indicates what a successful or failed validation returns.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Full model object in the documented input contract'), so the schema carries the load. The description adds only marginal meaning by naming which aspects of that model are inspected (inputs, opening balance, provenance). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Validate') and names the concrete things checked: inputs, opening balance, and provenance. It is clear on its own, but it gives no signal distinguishing it from the semantically adjacent sibling finance_verify (or finance_doctor), so an agent cannot route between them from the description alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this rather than finance_verify, finance_doctor, or finance_run, and no stated prerequisites or calling order. 'Missing inputs remain errors' hints at a pre-run check but never frames the usage condition explicitly.

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