cash_burn_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions analysis and calculation but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what data sources it uses, whether it performs destructive changes, or what the output format looks like. For a financial analysis tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise with just two key actions ('analyze' and 'calculate') and their objects ('cash burn rate' and 'runway'). Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

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?

For a financial analysis tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what data the analysis is based on, how results are presented, or what assumptions are made. Given the complexity of financial modeling, this leaves too many contextual gaps.

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 description mentions analyzing cash burn rate and calculating runway but doesn't explain how the 'monthsBack' parameter influences this analysis. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the tool name. The baseline is appropriate given the single parameter.

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 with specific verbs ('analyze' and 'calculate') and resources ('cash burn rate' and 'runway'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cash_flow_forecast' or 'cash_flow_at_risk', which prevents a perfect 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the analytics and cash flow categories, there's no indication of specific scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to tools like 'cash_flow_forecast' or 'analytics_scenario_comparison'.

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