Profit Analysis Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, indicating safe, idempotent behavior. The description adds one specific behavioral trait: passing only one date returns empty results. This adds context beyond annotations but doesn't fully describe other behaviors (e.g., output format). No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second explains the optional date parameters with a clear constraint. Every sentence adds necessary information; no fluff or repetition. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no enums, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter constraints. It lacks details about the output (e.g., what fields are in the analysis) but annotations compensate for safety. For a simple read tool, it is nearly complete.

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 the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the pairing constraint for start and end (both must be provided together), which is not in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 clearly states 'Get detailed profit and loss analysis for a specific symbol,' using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('profit and loss analysis'). The symbol parameter is required and the tool's name (profit_analysis_detail) distinguishes it from sibling profit_analysis (likely a list). This provides strong purpose clarity.

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 mentions an optional date range with a critical constraint: both start and end must be provided together, or empty results are returned. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., profit_analysis). The guideline is present but limited to parameter constraints.

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