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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the default date-range behavior, but says nothing about what the report returns (no output schema exists), so the agent still lacks return-content context.

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?

Two short sentences: purpose first, key default behavior second. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is front-loaded poorly.

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 simple read-only report with fully documented params and annotation-covered safety, the essentials are present. But with no output schema and a near-identical v1 sibling, the description should say what the v2 report contains and how it differs from get-profit-and-loss.

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 100%, with dateFrom, dateTo (YYYY-MM-DD) and companyId all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds the default date-window behavior, not additional parameter meaning.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Generate a profit and loss v2 report for a company'), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. However, it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'get-profit-and-loss' (the v1 variant), leaving the agent unable to tell which version to pick from the description alone.

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?

It states a useful default ('year-to-date if no date range provided'), which implies a usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer the v1 sibling. Usage is only inferable rather than stated.

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