billy_profit_loss

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those hints: it reports only non-voided postings, defaults to live incomeStatement account natures, and explicitly warns that no chart numbers are assumed. This reduces the risk of incorrect expectations.

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 dense sentences deliver the core behavior first and the parameter flexibility second, with no wasted words. Every clause adds semantic value, and the structure supports quick agent comprehension.

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 read-only annotations, six parameters, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains data inclusion, defaults, and override behavior. It could optionally clarify verbose or the exact response shape, but these are not essential for a safe and correct call.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does for the most important parameters: reportType and revenue/expenseAccountIds indicate alternative selection modes, and 'Period' implies start/end. Only verbose is left unexplained, but its boolean nature and default false make that a minor 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?

The description states a specific deliverable ('Period P&L') and a precise data source ('non-voided postings'). It also distinguishes itself by explaining the default account-nature basis versus explicit reportType or revenue/expense account IDs, which differentiates it from account-code-driven siblings like billy_trial_balance.

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 makes the usage context clear: use it for period profit/loss reporting, with sensible defaults applied automatically and explicit overrides available when needed. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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