get_balance_sheet_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what it does, not any traits like read-only, potential costs, data scope (e.g., does it include all accounts?), or performance. The description is insufficient for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 of 9 words with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded and 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?

Despite a rich schema with 10 parameters, the description lacks context about return values, typical use, or the meaning of the balance sheet report. There is no output schema to compensate. The description feels incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's purpose and invocation.

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 100% (all parameters have descriptions in the schema). The tool description adds no further meaning; it just says 'given filters'. Baseline is 3 because the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 verb 'Returns' and resource 'balance sheet report', with scope 'for the given filters'. It is specific about what the tool does, but given the many sibling report tools, it does not differentiate from them (e.g., get_income_statement_date_range_report also returns a report for filters).

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 on when to use this tool versus the 45+ sibling report tools. The description does not specify prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. This is a significant gap given the large set of similar tools.

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