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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that figures come 'from the ledger' for a bounded period and that basis affects the result, which is genuine context, but it says nothing about whether unclosed periods are included or how the statement is delivered.

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?

A single tight sentence with no padding, and the report kinds are front-loaded. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, so the action is inferred from the tool name rather than stated.

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 flat, read-only report tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description delineates the full input space (kind, period, company, basis) at a conceptual level. Only the edge cases around company scoping and the return shape are left implicit.

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 'company' is documented), so the description has to carry weight — and it does cover the concepts behind kind, from/to (period), basis and company. It still omits the date format, the accrual default, and the accepted 'Personal'/'all'/omit-for-all company values, so it compensates only partially.

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 names the exact artifact produced (profit and loss, balance sheet, or cash flow statement) and its scope (per company, from the ledger, for a period, cash or accrual basis). That maps cleanly onto the enum and other params, so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby read tools like get_metric or get_overview.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as get_metric, get_overview, or query_transactions, and no prerequisites (e.g., period must be closed, or which company values are valid) are given. Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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