financial_statement

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, that company defaults to the default company, that ERPNext fiscal_year is resolved from dates, and that a spanning trial-balance range is refused rather than guessed. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs to know.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds differentiated behavior per statement type. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key calling decisions: statement selection, date-range semantics, periodicity, fiscal-year limitation, and company defaulting. It stops slightly short of describing the return shape, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It documents valid statement values, periodicity choices, date-range meaning, the fiscal-year constraint on dates, and the company default. Every parameter in the schema gains meaning beyond its name and type.

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 clearly identifies the resource: one of the standard financial statements (pnl, balance_sheet, trial_balance) over a date range. It is specific enough to know what the tool returns, though it lacks an explicit action verb and does not directly distinguish itself from financial siblings like sales_report or gl_entries.

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 useful constraints—P&L/BS use date-range filtering with periodicity, and trial balance must stay within one fiscal year—so usage context is implied. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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