get_gl_accounts_fiscal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait (inclusion of fiscal corrections, i.e., fiscale stand) and the context of aligning with Yuki fiscal reports. It doesn't mention pagination or response format, but the core read behavior is 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by usage context and the alternative. Every sentence is purposeful, with no repetition or fluff.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, what data it includes, when to use it, and which sibling to use instead. Since there is no output schema, it does not describe the return structure, but the core usage context is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema covers both parameters (date, administrationId) with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the 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 retrieves all GL accounts with balances including fiscal corrections. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_gl_accounts by contrasting the fiscal view with the commercial view, making its purpose instantly clear.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: use for balance sheet and P&L views matching Yuki fiscal reports, and use get_gl_accounts instead for commercial/operational views. It names the alternative and the exact conditions for each choice.

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