analytics_13_week_forecast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'Generate[s]' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as computational requirements, output format, whether it's read-only or mutative, error handling, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.

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 with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes key features (confidence intervals, risk analysis) without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the input schema (4 parameters with nested objects) and no annotations or output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output, or how to interpret results like confidence intervals, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 low at 25%, with only 'categories' and 'startDate' having descriptions. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the tool's name, failing to explain the purpose of 'categories', 'drivers', or 'worksheetName', leaving most parameters undocumented.

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 specific action ('Generate') and resource ('13-week rolling cash flow forecast') with additional outputs ('confidence intervals and risk analysis'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'analytics_52_week_forecast' by specifying the 13-week duration and from 'cash_flow_forecast' by emphasizing statistical features.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analytics_52_week_forecast' or 'cash_flow_forecast'. The description implies usage for forecasting with uncertainty analysis but lacks context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.

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