get_rolling_cash_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It offers only a high-level phrase and says nothing about how the rolling period is applied, whether account filtering is supported beyond the schema, what data is returned, or any side effects. This is nearly negligible disclosure.

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 sentence and is not verbose, but it is under-specified. It essentially restates the tool name ('Get rolling cash flow analysis' versus 'get_rolling_cash_flow') without adding useful information, so it does not earn its place as a clarifying description.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the analysis includes, expected output format, or default behavior. It provides none of that, relying solely on the schema for parameter meaning and leaving the tool's overall behavior largely undefined.

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 input schema already describes both parameters ('Rolling period' with an enum, and 'Filter by account ID'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no further meaning or examples, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get rolling cash flow analysis' clearly identifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('rolling cash flow analysis'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_cash_flow' by the word 'rolling', though it does not explicitly explain what makes it different beyond that.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool like 'get_cash_flow' would be more appropriate. The description simply states the action without context.

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