Get Cash Flow Forecast

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds substantial behavioral detail by enumerating exactly what data is returned (e.g., projected low point, recurring patterns, tax deadlines). It does not disclose potential limitations like data freshness or assumptions, but it goes well 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 a single long sentence that packs a lot of useful information without redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose ('13-week cash-flow forecast') and then lists specific outputs and usage triggers. It could be split into two sentences for readability, but it is not overly verbose.

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 must convey what the tool returns, and it does so comprehensively by listing the key outputs. It also gives usage context. Minor omissions like historical data coverage or accuracy caveats are not critical for a read-only forecasting tool, so it is largely complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and there is nothing to add in the description about parameters. The description focuses on outputs instead, which 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns a 13-week cash-flow forecast with specific components (current balance, weekly inflows/outflows, running balance, projected low point, recurring patterns, outstanding invoices, tax deadlines). The verb 'get' and resource 'cash flow forecast' are explicit, and the detailed output list distinguishes it from siblings like get_balance or get_transactions.

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 specifies when to use the tool: when the user asks about cashflow, runway, 'can I afford X', 'when will I run out', or wants to plan ahead. This is clear guidance, though it does not mention alternatives or situations where it should not be used, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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