Project Profitability Analytics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating the tool is '[LIMITED]' and 'Returns project list only,' which clarifies a key behavioral constraint not fully captured by annotations alone. However, it doesn't go deeper into what 'project list' includes (e.g., project number, name, aggregated metrics).

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 two clear sentences, front-loaded with '[LIMITED]' to immediately set expectations. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given 6 optional parameters, a robust annotation set, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the limited scope, specifies the output boundary ('Returns project list only'), and points to the correct alternative for full financials. A minor gap is not describing what fields are in the returned project list, but the sibling alternative mitigates this.

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 covers all 6 parameters with descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to add parameter details. The description itself adds no new information about parameters, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 function: 'Analyze profitability by project.' It also specifies the output scope: 'Returns project list only.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fortnox_account_activity and fortnox_invoice_summary, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 alternative usage: 'For actual project financials, use fortnox_account_activity with project filtering on vouchers.' This tells the agent when to choose a different tool, which is exactly the guidance needed.

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