get_ledger_statement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait, 'with running balances', but does not state read-only behavior, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a data-fetch tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded, focused sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is too thin. It omits which parameter identifies the entity, the default date range, pagination/limit behavior, and any indication of the response shape beyond 'running balances'. The required company_id is also not reflected in the description.

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 67%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds a conceptual link between 'party, customer, or bank' and ledger parameters, but it does not explain ledger_id, company_id semantics, or how from_date/to_date interact with limit. It adds only marginal value beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a well-defined resource ('date-wise statement for a party, customer, or bank with running balances'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_ledger_balance (a single balance vs. a statement) and search_ledgers (searching vs. retrieving a statement).

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, preconditions, or sibling tools, so an agent must infer usage purely from the generic statement-return description.

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