Profit Analysis Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds the date-pairing constraint but does not disclose other behaviors such as authentication requirements or rate limits. This is adequate given the 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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, and the second provides essential parameter usage guidance. No extraneous information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not describe the return structure. However, the tool name and annotations suggest a straightforward read operation. Minor gap: no details on what the detailed profit and loss analysis contains (e.g., fields like revenue, net profit).

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%, and the schema already includes the pairing constraint for start and end. The description repeats this constraint but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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 clearly states 'Get detailed profit and loss analysis for a specific symbol,' providing a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('detailed profit and loss analysis'), and scope ('for a specific symbol'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'profit_analysis' by emphasizing 'detailed' analysis.

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 explicitly instructs that start and end dates are optional but must be provided together, with a clear format (yyyy-mm-dd) and consequence (empty results if only one is given). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'profit_analysis'.

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