bank_balances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key trait: the operation is read-only and provides a snapshot. But it does not explain the effect of from_date/to_date on the snapshot, whether balances are current or as-of a date, or any other behavioral limitations such as data scope or aggregation behavior.

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: two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the pointer to alternative tools is placed in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return shape does not need to be explained in the description. The description covers the high-level purpose and read-only nature, but leaves a material gap around the two date parameters and their semantics. For a simple tool this is close to sufficient, but the missing date behavior prevents it from being fully complete.

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 0% and the description does not mention to_date or from_date at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent to guess date format, default behavior, or how the balance snapshot is filtered. For a tool with low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and did not.

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 identifies the resource ('bank/cash balances') and signals that the tool provides a read-only snapshot, which clearly conveys that it retrieves balance data. It also distinguishes itself from list_records/get_record on bank_accounts for individual account drill-in. However, it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', so it is slightly less direct than a fully explicit purpose statement.

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 tells agents when NOT to use this tool (for individual account search/drill-in) and names the alternative tools (list_records/get_record on bank_accounts). It does not, however, explicitly contrast this tool with other financial report siblings like balance_sheet, profit_and_loss, or trial_balance, so usage guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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