trial_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output structure (opening + period debit/credit + closing per account), which is useful, but it omits behavioral details such as read-only status, date handling, company scope, or error behavior. The description is acceptable but not rich.

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 description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and output structure. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral expectations, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke it confidently in all scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implies that date_from/date_to define the period, but it does not explain the date format, the meaning of company_id, or any constraints. This is minimal compensation for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a trial balance report and specifies its composition: opening balance, period debit/credit, closing balance per account for a period. This distinguishes it from other accounting reports like general_ledger, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling reports such as general_ledger or profit_and_loss. The phrase 'for a period' implies a date range, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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