Analysis — Upcoming scheduled risks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral detail: it discloses the exact criterion that sets is_risk=true (insufficient category balance) and the default/ceiling for the scan window. It omits any note on cost or result volume, so it is not a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and capability. The '[READ]' prefix partially duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, which is minor waste but not enough to hurt readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. For a read-only two-parameter analysis tool, the description supplies the risk criterion and window guidance; only the unexplained plan_id leaves a small gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains lookahead_days well (default 30, max recommended 90), but plan_id is never mentioned, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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+resource: scheduled outflows within a lookahead window that may exceed category balances, plus the is_risk flagging behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like scheduled_transactions_list, which merely enumerate scheduled transactions without risk assessment.

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 'may exceed category balances' implies the analytic use case, but the description never says when to prefer this over scheduled_transactions_list or analysis_overspent_categories, nor any prerequisite for plan_id. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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