list-profit-and-loss

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Lists'), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what happens when parameters are omitted. The description mentions 'over a specified period' but doesn't clarify default behavior when dates aren't provided.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides valuable context about what the report contains. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the tool's read-only nature.

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 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks important context about output format, error handling, and parameter interactions. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has incomplete information about what to expect from this tool's behavior and results.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'over a specified period of time' which relates to fromDate/toDate parameters, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions (e.g., how periods and timeframe work together) or business logic behind flags like standardLayout and paymentsOnly.

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's purpose: 'Lists profit and loss report in Xero' with specific details about what it provides ('summary of revenue, expenses, and profit or loss over a specified period'). It distinguishes itself from other list tools by focusing on financial reporting rather than transactional data, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar report tools like list-report-balance-sheet.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this report is appropriate versus other financial reports (like list-trial-balance or list-report-balance-sheet), nor does it specify any prerequisites or constraints for using this tool effectively.

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