reconstructed_profit_and_loss

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context they don't: the result is non-authoritative, derived from the /transactions ledger, and lacks the group layout of a formal statement.

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 dense sentence with no filler; the reconstructed/non-authoritative caveat is front-loaded so the agent sees the key distinction immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, source, and the non-authoritative caveat. The only real gap is date-parameter semantics for the two required arguments.

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 coverage is 0% and both required parameters (from_date, to_date) are undocumented in the schema. The description only says 'for a period,' adding no format, inclusivity, or timezone semantics, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 a specific operation (reconstructed P&L), the grouping dimension (by account), the time scope (a period), and the underlying data source (/transactions ledger). It explicitly distances itself from the sibling profit_and_loss ('not Manager's Profit and Loss Statement'), so an agent can route correctly.

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 'authoritative: false' flag plus 'not Manager's Profit and Loss Statement' gives clear context for when this tool is the right choice versus the authoritative sibling. It stops short of an explicit routing instruction ('use profit_and_loss when...') or exclusions, so it is clear but not fully prescriptive.

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