get_fund_flow

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. Beyond stating it provides a breakdown over time periods, it discloses no behavioral traits such as read-only nature, data volume, required permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Two succinct sentences convey the action, scope, and a prerequisite. No redundant or unnecessary text; every part earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not hint at the format or structure of the breakdown (e.g., per year, aggregated, percentages). It also omits units, data sources, and any limitations. Given the tool's financial nature and lack of annotations, this is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds minimal parameter meaning: 'years' is implied to be the time period (1/3/5/7/10), but 'company_id' receives no explanation (only integer). The description does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves a capital allocation breakdown (fund flow) for specific time periods (1, 3, 5, 7, 10 years). The verb 'get' and resource 'capital allocation breakdown' are specific, and the prerequisite 'run resolve_company_ids first' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_financials.

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?

Description includes a clear prerequisite (resolve_company_ids) and enumerates valid year inputs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provide explicit when-not guidance.

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