mfc_ca_getReportsTransitionProfitLoss

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves a report; it does not mention any required parameters, default period behavior, output shape, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only.

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?

A single, clear Japanese sentence with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a very brief description, important context is missing. An agent cannot reliably determine valid values for type, how date parameters interact, or what the response will contain.

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 17%, and the tool description does not compensate. Only 'type' has a schema description; end_month, fiscal_year, include_tax, start_month, and with_sub_accounts are undocumented, and the description adds no meaningful meaning to them beyond the word 'monthly'.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: retrieving (取得します) the monthly transition table for the profit and loss statement (損益計算書の推移表). This is precise enough to distinguish it from balance-sheet and trial-balance report siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 about when to choose this tool over similar report tools such as mfc_ca_getReportsTrialBalanceProfitLoss or mfc_ca_getReportsTransitionBalanceSheet. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or hints about required inputs like type.

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