bokio_account_balances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and an output schema exists, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations cannot: the ledger sign convention (debit positive, credit negative) and that the figures are derived from the SIE export, which tells the agent how to interpret and compare the numbers.

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 short sentences, zero filler: purpose first, sibling disambiguation second, interpretation cue third. Nothing is repeated from the structured fields and nothing could be cut without losing routing or interpretation value.

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?

With read-only annotations, a full output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to carry purpose, routing, and interpretation — which it does. It is slightly thin on the fiscal-year/date-default interaction, but that is already documented in the schema.

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%, including the date defaulting rule, company default, account filtering, and the not-found behavior for unknown fiscalYearId. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema already says, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (compute) and specific outputs (opening balance, movement, balance per account at a date) drawing on the SIE export. The follow-on sentence explicitly contrasts it with bokio_account_ledger, so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

'Use it for what is on an account at a date; bokio_account_ledger shows the individual lines' gives a clear selection rule against the nearest sibling. It stops short of stating exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., that a fiscal year or company must be resolvable first), so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not map.

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