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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds value beyond that by disclosing the returned column structure, the base-currency reporting, the treatment of Equity (Retained Earnings, Current Year Earnings), and the final Total Liabilities & Equity line. It does not discuss pagination or edge cases, but for a read-only report tool this is strong.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the as-of constraint before the report contents and the sibling alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, though the account-type enumeration is slightly heavy.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so thoroughly (column layout, currency, equity composition, final total line). Combined with the sibling routing, an agent has everything needed 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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (id, dateTo, dateFrom) are already documented. The description reinforces the key semantics (dateTo default/UTC, dateFrom ignored), but this largely restates what the schema already says rather than adding new format or validation detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get a company's balance sheet'), the as-of semantics, and what the report contains (Assets, Liabilities, Equity by account type and account, with totals). It also distinguishes itself from related report tools by naming them explicitly.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use get-trial-balance for account movements over a period, get-profit-and-loss for income/expenses, get-cash-flow-statement for cash flows. It also clarifies that dateFrom is ignored and dateTo defaults to today, removing the main point of confusion.

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