report_profit_and_loss

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Run a ... report' reasonably conveys a non-mutating read, and it discloses the report's content (income, expenses, net profit), which is useful. However it says nothing about permissions/scope, default date behavior when no range is given, response shape, or row limits — gaps that matter for a financial report with no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the report identity and content before the capability list; no filler. The second sentence is slightly vague inventory — 'summarization, and filters' — that repeats what the schema already enumerates more precisely.

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 single-object-parameter read report with a well-described nested schema, the description covers the essentials of what is computed. It stops short on things an agent needs in practice: how summary differs from the detail report, what happens if no date range is supplied, and whether results are paged — none of which the schema or annotations address.

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 description adds only a coarse summary of parameter categories ('date range, accounting method, summarization, and filters') — it names no parameter and adds no syntax beyond what the nested schema already documents in detail per field. Since the schema itself fully describes the nested properties, the description need not compensate, but it also contributes little.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Run a Profit and Loss (Income Statement) summary report' — and names the content produced (income, expenses, net profit) over a period. The word 'summary' implicitly separates it from the sibling report_profit_and_loss_detail, but that sibling is never named, so the distinction relies on inference.

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 only implied: the description lists supported knobs (date range, accounting method, summarization, filters) which hints at when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to report_profit_and_loss_detail for line-level data. An agent must infer routing from the word 'summary'.

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