Get Cashflow

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it accepts ISO strings or natural language dates, and defines defaulting rules for missing start/end dates. This adds actionable context agents would otherwise not infer from the schema, though it does not describe the shape of the returned data.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose, the second delivers essential parameter behavior. There is zero filler; every clause earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple (two optional parameters) and an output schema exists, so the description covers the critical calling details: date formats and defaults. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'cash flow' represents semantically, but given the output schema and annotations, this is reasonably complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning, and it does. It explains that both parameters are optional date filters, clarifies accepted formats (ISO or natural language), and specifies default behavior for missing values—adding significant value over the bare schema.

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 function: 'Retrieve cash flow' with optional start_date/end_date filters. It is specific about the resource and operation, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_spending_summary or get_transactions, so it stops short of a top score.

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 implies when to use the tool (when cash flow data is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives, nor any conditions under which it should not be used. There are no mentions of sibling tools or exclusionary cases, making the guidance adequate but not strong.

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