billy_report_balance

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

The description explicitly labels the tool as READ-ONLY, which is a key behavioral trait. However, without annotations, more detail would be helpful, such as confirming no side effects or idempotency. It adds some value beyond the tool name.

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 extremely concise with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key information. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, e.g., adding a verb.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description does not explain what the balance sheet contains, what the response format is, or any potential prerequisites. It is too minimal for a complete understanding.

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 is 'date', and while the description hints at its purpose ('at a point in time'), it does not explain the expected format, required range, or whether past/future dates are allowed. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 resource (balance sheet) and the time constraint (at a point in time). The purpose is understandable, but it lacks a verb like 'generates' or 'retrieves'. It does not distinguish from sibling reports like billy_report_profit_loss.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternative report tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, date format expectations, or context where this report is appropriate. The usage is only implied by the tool name.

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