Compute Profit and Loss

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: account 9000 and legacy YECL closing journals are excluded from the result. It does not mention that results may be cached (implied only by the 'fresh' parameter) or any permission requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence carries real domain information (exclusions) rather than filler. Nothing is wasted and nothing redundant with the schema is repeated.

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 report tool with no output schema, the description conveys the accounting basis and the exclusion rules, which is the information an agent most needs to interpret results. It stops short of describing the returned structure (line items, hierarchy, totals), which is the one remaining gap.

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 100%, so date_from, date_to and fresh are fully documented in the schema; the description only implies that the report is period-scoped, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does all the parameter work.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Compute profit and loss statement (kasumiaruanne) for a period') and clarifies the accounting content as revenue minus expenses. It is clearly distinguishable from report siblings like compute_balance_sheet or compute_trial_balance by the resource named, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied (period-based P&L report) but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternatives named among report tools such as compute_balance_sheet or generate_annual_report_data. The scoping rule about excluded journals tells the agent how results are shaped, not when to pick this tool.

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