report_balance_sheet

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, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the report's contents. It does not say that this is a read-only, non-mutating call, whether results are paginated or row-limited, how long a large report takes, or what the response structure looks like. The mutual exclusivity of date_macro vs. start_date/end_date is documented only in the schema, not here.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource before listing capabilities. No filler, no restatement of the name, and every clause carries information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a nested parameter object, the definition is only partially complete — the capability summary is useful but leaves an agent without return-shape, safety, or size expectations. It is enough to attempt a correct call, but not enough to call it confidently against a large ledger.

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?

Context signals put schema description coverage at 0% for the single top-level `params` object, so the description must supply meaning. It does enumerate the capability categories — date range, accounting method, summarization, and filters — which maps onto the main parameter groups, but it omits the eight specific filter dimensions, the date_macro option, and the default accounting-method behavior.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Run a Balance Sheet report") and defines the content ("assets, liabilities, and equity"), which distinguishes it from report_profit_and_loss and report_trial_balance by subject matter. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so differentiation relies on the agent's accounting knowledge.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., permissions or fiscal periods), and no routing advice versus the other report_* siblings. The only contextual clue is the report's subject matter, which is implied rather than stated.

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