tally_get_trial_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses the critical sign convention (debit figures arrive negative), distinguishes null from zero, explains period default behavior, warns about prompt injection in text fields, and states the server is strictly read-only. These are substantial behavioral details beyond the schema.

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 longer than average but every section earns its place: purpose, when-to-use, returns, granularity, signs, period, and security. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear labels (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, GRANULARITY, SIGNS, PERIOD), making it easy to scan.

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 tool has inherent complexity: sign handling, default date ranges, and output shape. Without an output schema, the description compensates fully by explaining the return format ('one row per group') and all critical caveats. It also provides a concrete example of the sign behavior, making it highly usable.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the Indian financial year default (1 April to 31 March) and the constraint to supply both dates or neither. However, much of the date logic already exists in the schema descriptions, so the added value is incremental.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the trial balance: closing debit and credit totals per account group.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying granularity ('top-level groups') and explicitly pointing to tally_list_ledgers for per-ledger balances.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'WHEN TO USE: to check that the books balance, or as the starting point for an analysis that then drills into specific groups or ledgers.' It also names an alternative tool for per-ledger balances and gives a clear date rule ('Supply both dates or neither').

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