get_trial_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: the trial balance is computed from invoices if the chart of accounts is not initialized. However, it omits other important behavior such as how date parameters affect the output, the format of the response, and whether the operation is read-only.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences in French. It front-loads the core purpose and adds one relevant conditional detail. No redundant wording or filler.

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?

Despite its simplicity, the tool has two date parameters and no output schema, and the description fails to explain the parameters, return value, or how this report differs from related accounting reports. For an agent deciding among many sibling tools, this is insufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain the date_start and date_end parameters at all. The description adds no meaning to these parameters, leaving the agent without any information about date filtering or required inputs.

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 identifies the tool as providing the general balance of accounts (trial balance), a specific accounting resource. It adds a computational condition (calculated from invoices if chart of accounts is not initialized), which gives some scope but does not distinguish it from sibling accounting report tools like get_financial_summary or get_aged_balance.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The conditional note about calculation from invoices is behavioral, not a usage recommendation, and there is no mention of prerequisites, preferred contexts, or exclusions.

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