general_ledger

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It clearly states the tool only returns 'posted' journal items, limited to one account and a date range, sorted by date, and includes a running balance. However, it omits details like permissions, empty-result behavior, and the exact nature of the running balance (opening vs. cumulative).

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 entire description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key attributes (posted items, account, period, ordering, running balance). Every phrase carries information with no redundancy.

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?

The description gives a solid high-level overview but lacks output schema and annotations, leaving gaps about the exact fields returned, date inclusivity, and handling of accounts with no activity. It is adequate for tool selection but not fully sufficient for understanding precise return semantics.

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 0% and the description provides only a vague paraphrase: 'one account for a period' maps to account_id and date range but does not clarify date formats, value constraints, or the precise role of each parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 explicitly states what the tool returns: all posted journal items for one account over a period, in date order, with a running balance. This clear, specific scope distinguishes it from sibling reports like trial_balance or profit_and_loss, which aggregate differently.

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 use when an account-level transaction list with running balance is needed, but it provides no explicit 'when to use' guidance or mention of alternatives like search_journal_entries or trial_balance. Usage context is only inferred from the tool's function.

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