get_balance_sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys the point-in-time nature and parameter defaults, which is helpful, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention data freshness, or disclose any potential limitations. For a simple financial report, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core definition. The usage guidance is a single sentence, and the args list is minimal. Every sentence provides necessary value 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, when to use, an alternative, and both parameters with defaults. No important context seems missing.

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 fully compensates. It documents both parameters with format and defaults: 'as_of: Balance sheet date, YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to today' and 'accounting_method: "Accrual" or "Cash". Defaults to the company setting.' This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 returns 'Assets, liabilities and equity at a point in time,' which is a specific and accurate definition of a balance sheet. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_profit_and_loss (period-based) and get_receivables_aging (specific breakdown) by describing its point-in-time nature.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use for questions about what the business owns and owes overall, cash position, or financial standing.' It also names an alternative, get_receivables_aging, for a more specific need, fulfilling the 'when/when-not' requirement perfectly.

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