forecast_cash_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the underlying data sources (open AR/AP invoices), the bucketing approach, and the returned value. The verb 'forecast' and the word 'returns' reasonably imply a read-only analysis tool, though it does not explicitly describe side-effect status or data freshness.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then uses a dash to state the output clearly. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description is mostly complete for a simple one-parameter tool: it explains data sources and return buckets. However, it creates ambiguity by only mentioning 0-30,31-60,61-90 day windows while forecastDays can be up to 180 days, and there is no output schema to clarify whether longer horizons produce additional buckets. That gap should be resolved.

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 only parameter, forecastDays, is fully documented in the input schema with a description, default value, and maximum value, so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Forecast') with a clear resource ('cash inflows from open AR invoices and outflows from open AP invoices') and defines the exact output ('net cash position for 0-30, 31-60, 61-90 day windows'). This clearly differentiates it from single-sided aging tools like get_ar_aging and get_ap_aging, as well as broader forecasting tools.

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 establishes clear usage context: this tool is for combining open AR and AP invoices into a future net cash position by due-date buckets. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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