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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description correctly does not restate it. The description still adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the filtering rule ('leaving out accounts with no entries') and the exact shape of the returned report. It does not mention pagination or result-size behaviour, which is the only remaining gap.

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 sentences, zero filler, and front-loaded with the core action before the return shape and the disambiguation list. Every clause carries information the agent needs to select and call the tool correctly.

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 compensates by fully describing the return payload (one line per ledger account plus the per-line fields). Combined with 100% schema coverage on all three required parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, nothing material is missing.

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%, so id, dateFrom and dateTo are already documented, including the YYYY-MM-DD format and inclusive endpoints. The description only reiterates that the period is required and that both days are included, which adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema. 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 trial balance') scoped to a required period, then enumerates exactly what each line contains (account code, name, type, debits, credits, net movement, opening/closing balances). This is precise enough that an agent can distinguish it from get-balance-sheet or get-journal-entries without opening any schema.

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 it for account-level balances and movements; use get-balance-sheet or get-profit-and-loss for the summarised statements, get-chart-of-accounts for the account list without balances, or search-accounting-transactions for the entries behind a balance.' This names four alternatives and the condition that selects each, which is the strongest form of usage guidance.

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