mfc_ca_getReportsTrialBalanceProfitLoss

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

With no annotations, the verb '取得' conveys a read-only retrieval operation and '累計' adds a meaningful scoping trait. The description does not disclose response format, pagination, or auth behavior, but these are partially hinted at in the schema and are not hidden side effects.

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 compact Japanese sentence with no filler, and the report scope ('cumulative P&L trial balance') is front-loaded. It is under-specified for a 9-parameter tool, but as a structure it is concise and readable.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin: an agent cannot tell how the date/month/fiscal_year parameters interact, what filtering options do, or what the returned report contains. This leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate: it says nothing about start_date/end_date vs start_month/end_month, fiscal_year, include_tax, journal_types, or with_sub_accounts. The description adds almost no meaning beyond the schema, though the schema itself documents three parameters.

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 '損益計算書の試算表（累計）を取得します' states a clear action (get) and a specific resource type (cumulative P&L trial balance), which is enough to identify the report among siblings. It does not explicitly call out sibling distinctions, so it falls short of a top score.

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 given on when to use this tool versus sibling report tools such as getReportsTransitionProfitLoss or getReportsTrialBalanceBalanceSheet. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred conditions for choosing this report.

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