get_cash_flow

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by detailing what the tool returns (inflows, outflows, net, breakdowns) and the grouping behavior, going beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two focused sentences with no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a purpose: explaining output, providing usage context, and giving a prerequisite.

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?

Given four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, and key output characteristics. While it does not detail the exact response structure, it sufficiently informs the agent about what to expect.

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 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds context by relating the group_by parameter to the output (e.g., 'by category or by month') and reiterating the need to call list_entities for entity_id, which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning a cash flow summary for a business entity, specifying inflows, outflows, net, and breakdowns by category or month. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_pnl or get_budget_status by focusing on cash flow rather than profit/loss or budget.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (e.g., questions about revenue vs expenses, monthly cash position) and provides a prerequisite (call list_entities for entity_id). However, it does not mention situations where an alternative sibling tool might be more appropriate.

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