mfc_ca_getReportsTransitionProfitLoss

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the tool retrieves a report. It does not mention authentication requirements, date-range behavior, default values, output format, or any side effects or limitations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, although the brevity comes at the cost of missing important usage and parameter context.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many closely related siblings, this description is far too minimal. An agent cannot determine correct parameter usage, return expectations, or when to select this tool over alternatives.

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 only 29% (2 of 7 parameters described), so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain type, start_month, end_month, fiscal_year, include_tax, or with_sub_accounts at all, leaving the agent with no additional semantic understanding.

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 ('取得します' / retrieves) and a specific resource ('損益計算書の推移表（月別）' / monthly transition table of the profit and loss statement). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getReportsTransitionBalanceSheet (balance sheet) and getReportsTrialBalanceProfitLoss (trial balance P/L).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar report siblings. No mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions that would help an agent choose this over getReportsTransitionBalanceSheet or getReportsTrialBalanceProfitLoss.

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