get_trial_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the key trait 'Read-only', which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about permissions, pagination behavior, default row limits, or result ordering, so the safety profile is only partially covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output definition before the optional filters. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or repeated.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output concept, and filter dimensions adequately. It stops short of describing the report's shape (columns, ordering, how topN truncates) or any prerequisite, which an agent would need without an output schema to lean on.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters including defaults and formats; baseline is 3. The description restates the filter dimensions (category, type, code) and the as-of-date concept without adding syntax, defaults, or interaction rules beyond what the schema provides.

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 the trial balance') and even defines the output concept parenthetically ('debit/credit balances per GL account as of a date'), which lets an agent distinguish it from neighboring reports like get_profit_and_loss and get_ar_aging. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself against those siblings.

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 ('Read-only financial report', optional filter dimensions), so an agent can infer this is a safe lookup invoked when a trial balance is needed. But there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternative report tools such as get_profit_and_loss, leaving selection to inference.

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