get_income_statement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'accrual-basis' but does not clarify what that entails (e.g., revenue recognition timing), nor does it address authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. The tool is presumably read-only, but this is not stated.

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, front-loads the tool's purpose, and then explains the parameters efficiently. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no annotations but does have an output schema (which may document return values), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter usage. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., accrual meaning, period handling edge cases) that would help an agent use it correctly, making it adequate but incomplete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by stating that 'start' and 'end' are inclusive ISO dates and can be omitted for all data. However, it does not specify the exact date format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD) or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 it provides an accrual-basis income statement (profit & loss) for a period, using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('income statement'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_balance_sheet' by explicitly naming the financial statement type.

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 explains the date parameters (inclusive ISO dates, omit for all data) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cash-basis reporting, other financial statements). Usage context is implied but not fully specified.

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