brc_grouped_nominal_accounts_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'creates' and cites a GET endpoint, but does not clarify if the report is persisted or generated on-the-fly, nor any read-only/mutation characteristics. This leaves ambiguity about side effects.

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 sentence that front-loads the action. It is concise but could be more structured to include output behavior. However, it meets a high bar for brevity.

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-generation tool, the description lacks details on output format, grouping criteria specifics ('when available' is vague), and any constraints. Given no output schema, more contextual completeness is expected.

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?

The only parameter (companyName) is described fully in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool creates a grouped nominal accounts report, specifies the source endpoint (GET /v1/nominalAccounts), and mentions grouping by account group/type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like brc_list_nominal_accounts (which likely lists raw accounts) and brc_multi_company_nom_ac_report (multi-company variant).

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 for grouped reports, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when raw list or multi-company report is needed). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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