holded_get_profit_loss

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly warns that balances come from the chart of accounts and are cumulative, meaning startDate and endDate are informational rather than filters. This is a meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the name; it could only be stronger by stating the expected response shape or read-only nature more directly.

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 compact sentences put the main purpose and calculation logic first, with the important caveat about accumulated balances at the end. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does enough by explaining the data source, the grouping logic, the metrics calculated, and the unusual date behavior. It does not describe the exact return format, but for an optional-parameter report tool the missing detail is minor.

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%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description's note about accumulated balances reinforces the 'informativo' qualifier in the schema but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what is already structured.

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 is verb-driven and resource-specific: it 'generates a profit and loss account' from the Chart of Accounts and names the exact accounting groups and metrics (EBIT, BAI, BDI). This distinguishes it from siblings like holded_get_balance_sheet and holded_get_vat_summary without needing to open their schemas.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for P&L reporting, so an agent can infer when to select it over balance-sheet or VAT-report siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous enough for routing.

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