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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the invoice:read scope requirement and discloses that the return includes containsUnreconciledData and hasMulticurrency flags, useful behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then defaults, returns, alternatives, and scope. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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 report tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies purpose, defaults, return flags, alternatives, and required scope. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears missing.

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%, so all three parameters (companyId, dateFrom, dateTo) are fully documented in the schema. The description only notes that dates are optional and default to year to date, adding marginal value beyond the schema's default explanations.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the profit and loss v2 report for a company') and explicitly names sibling reports it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from get-profit-and-loss, get-revenue-summary, and get-balance-sheet without opening schemas.

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?

Provides explicit routing: use get-profit-and-loss for the original report over a required range, get-revenue-summary for this report defaulting to the current quarter, and get-balance-sheet for assets and liabilities. Also states date defaults (year to date), covering when and how to use it.

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