report_trial_balance_fr

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the failure mode on non-French files, but says nothing about permissions, output contents, or whether the report is freshly computed versus cached. For a read-only report tool this is adequate but thin.

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 short sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the eligibility constraint immediately following. Nothing is redundant, and every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 and no output schema, the description should say more about what the report returns and any preconditions (e.g., that a French company file must be active). Eligibility and the error case are covered, so the definition is usable but not self-sufficient.

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 description adds no parameter guidance beyond the schema; the reported 0% coverage reflects the undescribed top-level 'params' wrapper, while the nested fields (start_date, end_date, date_macro, accounting_method) are in fact well documented in the schema itself. Because the effective documentation lives in the schema, no compensation is needed but no extra value is added either.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Run a Trial Balance report') and constrains scope to 'France-based companies', which implicitly separates it from the generic report_trial_balance sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation requires a small inference.

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?

It gives a clear eligibility condition ('Only available for French company files') and an exclusion with a stated consequence ('will error on non-French companies'), which is enough for an agent to decide applicability. It does not point to report_trial_balance for non-French files, leaving the fallback implicit.

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