Get P&L

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

The description adds the behavioral context that a brokerage session is required but auto-acquired and auto-released after idle, which is useful operational guidance beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict the read-only annotation, as this is a retrieval operation.

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 two sentences: the first identifies the purpose and data fields, the second states the session requirement. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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 simple one-optional-param read tool, the description covers the functionality, the returned data categories, and the session prerequisite. However, it does not describe the return structure or error behavior, so it falls short of complete, though the low complexity keeps it above average.

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?

The single parameter accountId is already fully described in the schema with 'Account ID. Uses default account if omitted.' The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema carries the burden as expected.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'account-level profit and loss data', enumerating the exact fields returned (dpl, upl, nl, el). This clearly differentiates it from sibling account tools like get_account_summary or get_performance.

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 implies usage for retrieving account-level P&L metrics, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state a 'when not to use'. The context is clear from the named fields, yet there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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