get_latest_roi_analyses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the 'finished only' filter, the per-type keying, and the non-erroring absence semantics for missing types. It doesn't state read-only/inference-cost implications explicitly, but 'Get' plus the absent-rather-than-error rule gives solid behavioral context.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by a required-params note and the return-shape caveat. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return shape (dict keyed by analysis_type, missing types absent). Complete enough to call correctly, though valid analysis_type values remain unstated.

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%, so the description must compensate. It confirms both params are required and clarifies that analysis_types drives the per-type keying of the result, but it does not enumerate valid analysis_type values or specify the agent_id format.

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 verb and resource ('get the latest finished ROI analysis result per type for one agent') and adds the semantic gloss 'the agent's current cost-optimization recommendations.' This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like get_roi_analysis (single analysis) and list_roi_analyses.

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?

Says both parameters are required and explains that a type with no finished run is simply absent from the result. However, it never tells the agent when to prefer this over get_roi_analysis or list_roi_analyses, so selection guidance is only implied.

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