Get Cash Runway Depletion Calendar

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: results are sorted by urgency (lowest runway first), the runway is an estimate subject to future changes, and default window is today to 90 days. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 four sentences with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by key distinguishing features and caveats. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, output schema present, many siblings), the description fully covers the purpose, behavior, and important caveats. The existence of an output schema means the return value structure does not need explanation in the description.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the default window (today to 90 days) but does not elaborate on each parameter's meaning or provide additional context beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the tool finds companies projected to run out of cash within a date window, with a clear verb ('find') and resource ('cash depletion events'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting similarity to lockup expiration calendars but for cash depletion, providing unique identity.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (companies running out of cash) and includes important caveats about the estimate's dependence on future events. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the extensive sibling list, which would improve guidance.

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