freeagent_profit_and_loss

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds value by specifying the content of the summary (income, expenses, operating profit, corporation tax estimate, dividends, retained profit) and the default period. It does not mention limitations like pagination or exact output structure, but the added detail goes beyond the annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and uses a dash to introduce key details. It is concise and every word adds value, with no redundant filler.

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 read-only reporting tool with two optional parameters and good annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It lists the expected components of the summary, which compensates for the absence of an output schema. No critical information is missing.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (fromDate and toDate), including their defaults and formats. The description's mention of 'current accounting year' merely echoes the schema defaults and adds no new semantic meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as a FreeAgent profit and loss summary, enumerating the included components (income, expenses, operating profit, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trial balance or company summary. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'get' or 'list'), instead using a noun phrase that closely mirrors the tool name.

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 provides context that the tool defaults to the current accounting year, giving some usage guidance. It implies this is the go-to tool for P&L data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention excluded scenarios. No clear when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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