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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, non-open-world query, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying that revenueEur/expensesEur/profitEur are net of BTW/ex-VAT and match the dashboard, while also distinguishing gross invoiced/paid 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses two dense sentences without wasted wording. The field-level clarification is directly relevant to correct interpretation of the returned financial figures.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately carries the burden of explaining the return values, including net vs gross fields and invoiceCount. It is nearly complete for a single-parameter summary query, though it does not describe output shape or edge cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single period parameter and its enum values are already documented in the schema. The description mentions 'for a period' but does not add syntax, default, or enum-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 resource and scope: revenue, expenses, and profit for a period. It is specific about the returned metrics, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as query_expense_breakdown, query_btw, or query_invoices.

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 this is the dashboard-matching summary tool and instructs the agent to use its net figures as revenue/expenses/profit. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over query_expense_breakdown, query_btw, or query_invoices, so usage remains inferred rather than directed.

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