Get Profit & Loss Report

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and idempotency, but the description adds valuable context by specifying the return content structure (Income, Cost of Goods Sold, Expenses, Net Income) and output format options. It doesn't contradict annotations and enhances understanding of what the tool produces.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses bullet points for readability. It's appropriately sized but includes some redundancy (e.g., restating parameter details already in schema). Every sentence adds value, though it could be more front-loaded.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the report's components and output formats, compensating for the lack of output schema. However, it could better address usage context relative to sibling tools.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description repeats parameter info in the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections but adds minimal extra meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., clarifying report components). This meets the baseline for high schema 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 specific action ('Generate') and resource ('Profit & Loss (Income Statement) report'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list operations or invoice creation. It precisely identifies the report type and its accounting context.

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 implies usage for financial reporting within date ranges but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like other reports or list tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and parameters alone.

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