offsets__disbursement_schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only and describes the internal logic (splitting proceeds, withholding default). It also surfaces the pending registration case. This is good transparency for a preview tool, though it could mention if there are any rate limits or idempotency.

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 concise, using a single paragraph with minimal wasted words. It front-loads context in brackets and clearly states the action. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the parameter description from the logic, but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return format. It describes the internal calculation logic, but does not specify what the output contains (e.g., list of splits, amounts, project names). For a preview tool, this context is important for the agent to interpret results. The description is partially complete but lacks output specification.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no description for the 'project_id' parameter. The description only implies its use by mentioning 'for each verified restoration project', but does not explain the parameter's format, default behavior (empty string), or how to specify multiple projects. This leaves the agent guessing about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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: an automated disbursement preview that splits proceeds for verified restoration projects. It specifies the action (preview), the resource (disbursement schedule), and the context (offsets clearinghouse). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like offsets__certify_disbursement by noting it's a read-only preview and mentions a separate category for pending registration projects.

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 clear usage context: use this tool for previewing disbursements before certification/verification. It mentions read-only nature and notes that funded-but-unregistered projects are handled separately, implying when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, which would earn a 5.

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