get_cashflow

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, or side effects. The description only states what the tool returns without any such context. It does not indicate that this is a read operation or any limitations.

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, using only two sentences with an Arguments section. Every part is meaningful and wastes no words. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 has an output schema (not shown) and only two simple parameters, the description covers basic usage. However, it lacks behavioral context, auth requirements, and differentiation from siblings. It is minimally complete but not robust.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the description carries the full burden. The description clearly explains both parameters: start_date and end_date, including format, defaults, and relationship (both required together). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get cashflow analysis from Monarch Money.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'cashflow analysis' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_cashflow_summary', which may have similar functionality.

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 some usage guidance on date parameters (format, defaults, requirement of both if one given), but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_cashflow_summary' or other financial tools. The context is implied but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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