get_account_balances

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description adds that the tool 'fetches and aggregates all matching postings server-side', disclosing its server-side processing behavior. No contradictions. It could further detail potential performance impacts, but the guidance on date bounds mitigates that.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, example usage, and performance advice. No fluff, every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description covers the main use cases (single account balance and full trial balance) and performance tips. While it lacks details on return format (no output schema), the aggregation behavior is explained. For a tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the context is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by providing an example for accountNos and emphasizing that minEntryDate is 'strongly recommended' for speed, which enhances understanding beyond schema alone.

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 that the tool computes account balances or a trial balance from postings, with examples like 'what is the balance of account 5211'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_accounts (which lists accounts without computing balances) and list_postings (which returns individual postings).

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 explicit usage scenarios: ask for a specific account balance via accountNos, or omit filters for a full trial balance. It also advises bounding with minEntryDate/maxEntryDate for performance. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives for similar tasks, e.g., when to use list_postings instead.

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