get_charity_financials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying 'Up to 5 years of financial data' and 'detailed income and spending breakdowns,' which goes beyond the bare operation name. However, it does not mention any error conditions or access requirements, though for a read-only lookup this is acceptable.

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 compact, uses a clear Args/Returns structure, and every sentence earns its place. It avoids redundant filler and is appropriately sized for the tool's simple single-parameter signature.

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?

The tool has an output schema (though not shown), so the description need not fully explain returns, but it does anyway, noting the 5-year limit and breakdowns. With one parameter, no annotations, and a simple purpose, the description covers the essential context adequately. It lacks edge-case guidance (e.g., invalid registration number) but is otherwise complete for this level of complexity.

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 schema has no per-parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does provide a definition: 'registration_number: The charity's registration number.' This is essentially a restatement of the parameter name and adds little semantic value beyond confirming the obvious, but it is sufficient for a single well-named parameter.

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+resource: 'Get detailed financial history for a charity.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_charity_details, get_charity_trustees, and get_governing_document, which serve different purposes.

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 intended usage is implied by the tool name and sibling context, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative use cases, so guidance is merely inferred rather than explicit.

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