Get Financial Report

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds important domain behavior beyond annotations: the Swedish sign convention that income/liabilities are negative credit and costs/assets positive debit, which is critical for interpreting results correctly.

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 tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The report types are front-loaded, and the sign-convention note follows immediately as essential context.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover safety. It completes the key domain context with report definitions and sign conventions, but it leaves implicit how this tool relates to sibling financial-data tools.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters, including company optionality and end_month inclusivity. The description adds meaning to the report enum by mapping result/balance to resultatrapport/profit and loss and balansrapport, and clarifies that the period is whole months, though it does not mention the optional company parameter.

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 names the specific resource and both report variants: resultatrapport/profit and loss and balansrapport, with account rows over whole months. It is more specific than the tool title, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_transactions or get_accounts.

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 defines what the report contains but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. 'Over whole months' implies month-level reporting, but that is not framed as usage guidance.

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