cash_flow_forecast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'scenario analysis' but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only calculation, a destructive mutation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. For a forecasting tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and gets straight to the point 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?

For a forecasting tool with 2 parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how scenarios affect results, or provide enough context for reliable agent use.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'scenario analysis' which hints at the 'scenarios' parameter, but doesn't explain 'monthsAhead' or the structure/meaning of scenario multipliers. It adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from parameter names.

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 'Forecast future cash flows with scenario analysis' clearly states the verb ('forecast') and resource ('future cash flows'), and specifies scenario analysis as a key feature. It distinguishes from generic cash flow tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analytics_scenario_comparison' or 'cash_flow_at_risk'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone among many financial analysis siblings.

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