accounting.income_statement

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses important calculation behavior: 50-digit Decimal precision, no separate rounding of profit figures, 6-decimal HALF_EVEN margin rounding, zero-revenue margin behavior, and out-of-range errors. These details materially help an agent predict results and failure modes.

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 purpose, then proceeds through input format, precision, rounding, error behavior, and sign convention. It is compact and every sentence adds operational information.

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 7-parameter financial calculation with an output schema, the description covers the key computational and input constraints needed to invoke it correctly. The main remaining gap is that the description does not fully clarify how each of the optional income and expense parameters is signed or categorized.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description usefully adds that all amounts are finite Decimal strings, revenue and cost of sales must be non-negative, and expense items are entered as positive numbers. It still does not explain the role or sign conventions for every parameter, especially other_income versus other_expenses, interest_expense, and tax_expense.

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 a specific resource and operation: a multi-step income statement calculating gross profit, operating profit, pre-tax profit, net profit, and margins. It is distinguishable from balance-sheet or cash-flow siblings by resource, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with related profit tools such as accounting.break_even or accounting.ratios.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name and the listed income-statement stages, so an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative such as accounting.break_even for break-even analysis.

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