Get Financial Snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns 'the EXACT numbers on the user's Home dashboard', which tells the agent the values are dashboard-scoped and not computed differently. It also implies a consolidated snapshot rather than a detailed report. Minor gap: no mention of time period for 'this month' or currency, but the dashboard reference anchors it.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the resource and scope, the second lists trigger phrases, the third routes to alternatives. The most important information (what the tool returns) is front-loaded, and the alternative routing is compactly placed at the end.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what figures are included, when to use it, and which siblings to use instead. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by clearly defining what the tool returns (cash, open invoices, open bills, net profit this month), which is the only semantic content an agent needs for a no-arg call. Baseline 4 for 0 params 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('financial snapshot'), and enumerates exactly what figures are included: cash, open invoices, open bills, and net profit this month. It also explicitly ties the tool to the user's Home dashboard, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_profit_and_loss, get_balance, and get_invoices.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with example queries ('how am I doing', 'how much am I owed', 'what do I owe', 'what's my position') and explicitly names alternatives for other use cases: get_invoices/get_bills for line-level detail, and get_aged_debtors/get_aged_creditors for ageing. This is model routing guidance.

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