Gross Margin Trend Analytics

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the crucial limitation that it returns only formula and structure, not real data. This goes beyond annotations to prevent misuse, though it could further describe exactly how the formula is returned.

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 compact and front-loads the critical limitation ('LIMITED' and 'Returns formula and structure only') before pivoting to a practical alternative. Every sentence carries weight, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool that intentionally provides only formula and structure, the description is complete enough: it states its limited output, points to the correct tool for actual data, and relies on a fully documented schema for parameter details. A minor gap is not describing what the formula/structure output actually looks like.

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?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of the seven parameters, including enums, defaults, and date format patterns. The tool description adds account range examples for the alternative tool rather than new parameter semantics for this tool, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 title and description clearly identify the tool as 'Gross Margin Trend Analytics' while immediately flagging it as '[LIMITED]' and stating it returns 'formula and structure only.' This precise scope distinguishes it from sibling analytics tools and prevents false expectations.

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 explicit guidance: for actual margin data, use fortnox_account_activity with specific account ranges for revenue (3000-3999) and COGS (4000-4999). This directly answers when to use this tool versus the alternative, which is model behavior.

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