profit_and_loss

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered and the description's '(read-only)' is largely redundant. It does add one useful behavioral distinction — raw underlying rows versus a reconstructed/Manager report — but says nothing about return shape, filtering behavior, or volume.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the disambiguation. Every word earns its place; no filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a two-date-range report tool the description leaves the date-filter semantics entirely unspecified, which is a meaningful gap 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?

Two parameters (from_date, to_date) exist at 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about them — no date format, no default/inclusive semantics, no mention that they are optional. With non-zero undocumented params the 0-param baseline of 4 does not apply, so the description fails to compensate for the gap.

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?

Names the specific resource (raw /profit-and-loss-statement-transactions rows) with a verb-like scope marker ('Raw'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling reconstructed_profit_and_loss. An agent can tell these two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use it ('NOT Manager's Profit and Loss Statement') and routes the agent to the alternative (reconstructed_profit_and_loss). It does not give a positive condition for when raw rows are the right choice, but the negative routing is clear and actionable.

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