Compute Profit and Loss

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: it states that account 9000 and legacy YECL closing journals are excluded, and defines the calculation as revenue minus expenses. This helps the agent understand what data affects the result.

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 short, information-dense sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the exclusion detail is a single dependent clause. No redundant words or restatements.

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 three documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what is computed, what is excluded, and the period requirement. The 'fresh' parameter behavior is documented in the schema. It does not describe return format, but that is not required given the output schema is absent and the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% – all three parameters (date_from, date_to, fresh) have descriptions in the input schema. The description only adds the contextual phrase 'for a period' and does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('profit and loss statement') and defines its scope as 'revenue minus expenses'. Including the Estonian term (kasumiaruanne) and the exclusion of specific accounts distinguishes it from sibling tools like compute_balance_sheet and compute_trial_balance.

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 a period-based P&L but does not explicitly say when to choose this over compute_balance_sheet or compute_trial_balance, nor does it mention conditions or alternatives. Context is clear enough for an agent, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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