get_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does (get a report) and does not disclose behavior such as default date ranges, filtering behavior, whether zero-balance accounts are included, or any required permissions. It is a read-only report operation, but that is not stated.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose. It is appropriately brief, though it is arguably too short to carry necessary detail. No wasted words, but the brevity leaves gaps.

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 parameter-rich report tool (10 params) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what the report contains, how parameters interact, what the default date range is, or what the returned data looks like. The sibling list shows related financial reports, but the description does not help an agent distinguish or correctly configure this one.

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 only 20%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. The schema has 10 parameters, mostly under-documented (e.g., noneZero, showZero, noneTransactions have no descriptions, and displayColumnsBy/displayColumnsType are unclear in meaning). The description adds nothing beyond the bare resource name to clarify parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the Bigcapital balance sheet report.' It clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a balance sheet report, which is distinct enough from the sibling financial report tools (get_profit_loss, get_trial_balance, etc.) by naming the exact report type. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the resource name is specific and 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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for balance sheet reporting only, nor does it distinguish from similar financial report tools like get_trial_balance or get_general_ledger. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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