offsets__project_funding

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

The description discloses that the tool is 'Read-only' and that the CEO handles actual payouts, confirming no side effects. Without annotations, this behavioral transparency is sufficient. It also implies it is safe to call without committing changes.

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 yet informative, with a domain prefix, functional explanation, parameter guidance, and a note on read-only nature. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though slightly verbose with the prefixed bracket, which provides useful context.

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 single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, parameter usage, and behavior. It lacks explicit output format details, but the mention of specific fields (gross_proceeds_minor + retired_g) gives sufficient context for an agent to understand the return data.

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 compensates by explaining the optional project_id parameter: 'Pass a project_id for one project, else all.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's default empty string and clarifies the parameter's role.

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 is a 'Supply-side disbursement ledger' that shows how much each project has earned and is owed, with specific fields (gross_proceeds_minor + retired_g). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like offsets__buy_offset or offsets__certify_disbursement, which handle different operations.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Pass a project_id for one project, else all.' This tells the agent how to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other tools or mention when not to use it, but the context of being read-only is clear.

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