freeagent_trial_balance

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

The description discloses a key behavioral detail (sign convention) and mentions 'every nominal account', but this conflicts with the nonZeroOnly parameter default (true), which omits zero-balance accounts. This creates ambiguity about actual default behavior. Annotations already cover read-only/destructive safety.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool name and core purpose. The additional sign convention is essential. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple report tool with no output schema, the description covers the main output (balances) and sign convention, but fails to mention the nonZeroOnly filter's default behavior, which conflicts with 'every account'. It also does not describe return format (though not required by schema). The ambiguity reduces completeness.

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 100%, so both parameters are well-documented. However, the description's phrase 'every nominal account' contradicts the nonZeroOnly parameter's default, potentially misleading agents about filtering behavior. The description does not add positive value beyond the schema and introduces confusion.

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 clearly states the tool reports the balance on every nominal account with a sign convention (credits negative, debits positive). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling financial reports like freeagent_profit_and_loss, but the specific resource (trial balance) is unambiguous.

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 provides a clear context for use ('Useful for a full financial position') but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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