ms_get_profit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is clear. The description adds value by disclosing pagination (limit/offset), period bounds (moment_from/moment_to), and the rubles conversion toggle, which are behavioral aspects beyond the annotation.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement, followed by a succinct list of arguments with explanations, and the return format. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers all essential aspects: purpose, all 5 parameters with clear explanations, and the return structure. The tool is non-destructive (readOnlyHint), and no prerequisites are missing for typical use.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by explaining each parameter's purpose: moment_from/moment_to as date-time strings in a specific format, limit/offset for pagination, and rubles for converting kopecks to rubles. This adds necessary meaning beyond the schema's field names and types.

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: 'Profitability by product (sale, cost, profit, margin).' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ms_get_money and ms_get_turnover by focusing on profitability breakdown per product.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related tools such as ms_get_turnover or ms_get_money. The description only explains parameters and return format, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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