Practice dashboard

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

Annotations already establish the safe read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's burden is light. It does add genuine behavioral detail beyond the annotations: currency grouping is enforced so results are 'never mixed', and the last-N-months window is fixed. It does not mention row counts, performance, or result shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then enumerates the returned measures. Dense but each clause carries information; the parenthetical '(P&L income)' and '(never mixes currencies)' are the only marginal additions.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description effectively enumerates the returned measures (revenue by currency, average DSO, health band), which is what an agent needs to decide if this fits. Annotations cover the safety profile, so only minor gaps remain around result size/format.

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 coverage is 50%: as_of is documented in the schema, months is not. The description compensates for the undocumented months parameter by defining it as the lookback window ('last N months'), but adds nothing about as_of beyond what the schema already says.

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 specific resource (practice-level totals) and enumerates exactly what is returned: revenue/P&L income across all clients, DSO, and client health bands. The stated scope ('across all clients', 'practice-level') implicitly separates it from per-client siblings like client_health or overdue_invoices, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 practice-level framing implies when to reach for it (aggregate overview rather than per-client drill-down), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of scenarios better served by client_health or month_end_pack, and no prerequisites.

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