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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, but the description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of what the report contains (assets/liabilities/equity sections, comparative periods, currency) and no output schema exists to fill the gap. The endpoint path is the only added context.

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 short, front-loaded clauses with no filler; the resource and date scope lead. Slightly terse given the gaps it leaves, but nothing is wasted.

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 report tool with no output schema, the description should say at least what the response contains or how it is shaped. It covers the input and endpoint but leaves the agent guessing about return structure.

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?

Only one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the yyyy-mm-dd format. The description's 'as of a date' merely echoes the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 (report retrieval) and resource (balance sheet / neraca) with the as-of date scope. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling reports like trial balance or profit & loss, but the name is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the report name; there is no explicit guidance on when to choose a balance sheet over kledo_report_trial_balance or kledo_report_profit_loss, and no prerequisites or excluded cases are stated.

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