report_vendor_balance_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and "Run a report" only implicitly signals a read-only, non-mutating operation. It discloses the conceptual return content (open bills per vendor) but says nothing about pagination, row limits, as-of-date semantics, or what happens when a vendor has no open bills.

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 report identity front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is somewhat generic boilerplate about supported inputs, but it is brief enough not to be wasteful.

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?

Wrong — recalibrating: for a report tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a heavily documented nested parameter object, the description should at minimum position the tool against its summary sibling and state the read-only nature. It conveys purpose and output grain but leaves the sibling choice and behavioral profile to guesswork.

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 only groups capabilities at a high level ("date range, accounting method, and filters"), which is essentially a restatement of what the nested schema already documents in detail for every filter field. It adds no semantics beyond the schema — e.g., it never notes that date_macro and start_date/end_date are mutually exclusive, though the schema itself does.

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?

"Run a Vendor Balance Detail report showing individual open bills per vendor" gives a specific verb and resource and even clarifies the grain of the output (individual open bills, per vendor). It stops short of distinguishing this from the obvious sibling report_vendor_balance, which an agent must infer is the summary version.

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 when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says to pick this over report_vendor_balance (summary) or report_aged_payable_detail, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. "Supports date range, accounting method, and filters" describes capability, not selection criteria.

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