get_cash_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does without mentioning any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or what happens on errors. For a tool that likely fetches financial data, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward data retrieval tool, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 complexity of financial data tools and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like data sources, update frequency, or error handling, which are crucial for reliable use. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation and limitations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors beyond the schema's 'limit' default, or usage nuances. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: 'Get company cash flow statement (annual or quarterly)'. It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'company cash flow statement', making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_balance_sheet' or 'get_income_statement' beyond the resource name, which is why it doesn't reach a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_balance_sheet' or 'get_income_statement' for comparison, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts where this tool is preferred. The user must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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