General ledger (hovedbok)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces the read operation and adds a performance warning ('a full-year ledger ... can be large') that encourages filtering. It also clarifies the report content — accounts with opening/closing balances and postings — which goes beyond the schema. No contradiction found.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, followed by usage examples and a performance tip. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the complexity of 13 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core usage: period, account narrowing, size warning, and example queries. It does not describe the exact result structure, but the general ledger report is well enough characterized to inform correct invocation.

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 input schema covers all 13 optional parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline applies. The description adds meaningful guidance on account-selection parameters ('Narrow with accountNumber or an account range'), but it does not explain the other filters in detail. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 opens with 'Read the general ledger for a period' — a specific verb, resource, and scope — and lists the outputs ('opening balance, postings and closing balance'). It also gives concrete example questions ('what did we spend on X') that position it clearly against sibling list tools.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'This is the report to use for questions like...' It also advises narrowing with accountNumber or an account range due to potential size. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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