Get Project Pnl

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context by explaining the computation basis (bank transactions, invoice/bill/expense-claim commitments) and the parameter resolution mechanism (project_name fallback). It does not contradict annotations and enriches them without redundancy.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool returns and from what data; the second gives usage triggers and parameter guidance. The purpose is front-loaded, and every word contributes to agent decision-making.

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?

The description fully covers what the tool returns (income, costs, net margin, commitments), data sources, usage cases, and how to choose parameters. No output schema exists, so the description must convey return semantics, which it does. There are no missing pieces an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%: both project_id and project_name have descriptions. The description adds the preference order ('Pass project_id if known, or project_name to resolve it by name') but this largely mirrors the schema's 'preferred if known' and 'resolve if not known' phrasing. It does not introduce new semantic details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'deal/project's mini P&L', and enumerates its contents (income, costs by category, net margin, commitment summaries). It clearly distinguishes from general P&L tools like get_profit_and_loss and get_financial_snapshot by specifying the project scope and data sources.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('how is project X doing', 'project profit', 'mini P&L for a project', final report on completion). It implies it is for project-specific queries but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the distinction.

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