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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only' simply repeats this. No additional behavioral context is provided—such as what happens with invalid date ranges, whether basis affects results, or any authentication/rate-limit considerations. The description adds no new behavioral disclosure 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 two concise sentences, with the key content in the first. The second sentence 'Read-only' adds no value beyond the annotations, slightly reducing efficiency, but the overall structure is tight and front-loaded.

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 tool with five parameters including basis (accrual/cash) and date boundaries, the description is too thin. It doesn't clarify which parameters are needed for a meaningful report, how basis changes the output, or what the date range defaults to. An output schema exists, but parameter semantics still require explanation.

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 description coverage is only 20% (only companyId has a wrapper description). The description does not explain the meaning of basis, date range, currencyCode, or how they shape the report. 'For a period' is too vague to compensate for the low schema coverage, so the agent must guess at parameter semantics.

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 returns an income statement for a period, listing revenue and expense accounts with activity, totals, and net income. This specific verb+resource makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like balance sheet or trial balance.

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 implies when to use the tool (for income statement/reporting) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as accounting_get_balance_sheet or accounting_get_trial_balance. There is no clear 'when not to use' guidance, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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