list_ledgers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal important behaviors: the default company fallback and the case-insensitive substring search. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, which is a meaningful behavioral trait for an agent to know. Given that the tool name implies a read operation, the omission is not severe, but the description could be more explicit about the safety of the operation.

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 concise: two sentences for the purpose and a clearly formatted argument list. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. There is no fluff or repetition, and the argument explanations are structured and easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, a listing operation, and an output schema that presumably documents the return structure), the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It explains the default company behavior, the search filter, and the fields returned. No critical information is missing, and the presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere.

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 provides zero description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It does: both parameters (company and search) are explained with their semantics, including the default behavior of company and the case-insensitive substring matching of search. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema and leaves no ambiguity about what each parameter 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists ledger accounts and specifies the fields returned (group, opening balance, closing balance). The verb 'List' combined with the resource 'ledger accounts' is specific and distinct from the sibling get_ledger, which suggests a singular lookup. This gives an agent an unambiguous understanding of what the tool does.

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 clear context on how to use the tool, including the optional company parameter with its default behavior and the search filter semantics. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose of listing all ledgers is self-evident and distinguishes it from singular operations like get_ledger. No exclusions are needed beyond what the name and purpose imply.

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