Forecast Scheduled Balances

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety burden is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — horizon default and cap, exclusion of overdue/unscheduled items, disclosure of omitted schedules, and handling of ambiguous twice-monthly anchors. It stops just short of describing pagination or output shape in detail, though the output schema covers that.

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?

Three dense sentences with the scope first and exclusions after; nearly every clause carries information. Minor cost in readability from stacked domain jargon ('end-of-day minimum/negative balances, evidence and omitted schedules').

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the report contents and discloses modeling caveats (exclusions, ambiguous anchors) that an agent needs to interpret results honestly. Only the unexplained budgetId keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage, the description carries most of the burden: it supplies the horizonDays default and maximum and the transfer-scope nuance for accountId (reinforcing the schema). budgetId is left entirely undefined in both schema and description, which is the main gap for a 3-parameter tool.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: read-only ledger balances projected forward through scheduled payments/income/transfers. The parenthetical scope (default 30 days, max 365) and the explicit exclusions pin down exactly what the number means, which no sibling tool provides.

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?

Gives clear when-not guidance: current/overdue entries and unscheduled spending are excluded, and it is explicitly 'not bank settlement or available-to-spend guidance.' It does not name a sibling alternative for actual/current balances, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternative set.

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