get_profit_and_loss

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important defaults: current fiscal year to date when no dates are given, and accounting method defaulting to the company setting. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema shows.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, default behavior, and a parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has 3 optional parameters and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It fully covers purpose, when to use, parameter semantics, and defaults, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides only types and defaults with 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section explains each parameter fully: start_date and end_date with YYYY-MM-DD format, and accounting_method with allowed values 'Accrual' or 'Cash' plus default behavior. This compensates completely for the schema gap.

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 retrieves income, expenses, and net profit over a period, and explicitly lists use cases such as revenue, sales totals, expenses, spending, margins, and profitability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_balance_sheet and aging reports.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use for questions about revenue, sales totals, expenses, spending, margins, or whether the business is profitable'). It does not name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, but the context is clear.

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