forecast_cash_flow

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

With no annotations available, the description must carry the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the reliance on historical data, but does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, any limitations of the forecast, or what the output contains. This is a clear gap.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It earns its place and is easy to parse quickly.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what the forecast result looks like or how it is presented. It also lacks context about data scope or how the historical data is used. The minimal text leaves too much unspecified for a forecast tool.

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 already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (days, accountId, includeRecurring), so the description needs no additional parameter explanations. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Forecast') and resource ('future cash flow') and adds the basis ('historical data'), which distinguishes it from historical reporting tools like get_cash_flow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_rolling_cash_flow, so it's not a full 5.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cash_flow or get_rolling_cash_flow. The description only states what it does, with no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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