erpnext_party_balance

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal domain context ('accounting balance for a Customer or Supplier') but does not disclose behavior beyond that, such as how the optional date and company parameters affect the result or what the balance represents. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters, and the brevity comes at the cost of missing parameter and usage context, so it is not 'appropriately sized' despite being concise.

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 tool with four parameters, two required, and zero schema descriptions, the description is too thin. The output schema covers return values, but the description does not explain how 'party', 'date', and 'company' interact, what balance is returned, or how this tool fits among the many ERPNext siblings. An agent would need external knowledge to call it correctly in non-trivial cases.

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 should compensate for the undocumented parameters. It only hints at party_type by naming 'Customer or Supplier' and implies party is the entity of that type, but it provides no meaning or guidance for the required 'party' parameter or the optional 'date' and 'company' parameters.

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 action ('Return'), the resource ('ERPNext accounting balance'), and the party types ('Customer or Supplier'). It also differentiates reasonably from sibling tools like erpnext_stock_balance by specifying 'accounting balance' rather than stock balance, though it could be more explicit about what 'accounting balance' means in context.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what conditions select it. The description gives no context about using erpnext_stock_balance for inventory balances or erpnext_report_run for broader accounting reports, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name alone.

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