trial_balance

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

The only behavioral trait disclosed is 'read-only', but without annotations the description should cover more (e.g., date filtering, scope of accounts). The output schema exists but behavioral aspects beyond schema are missing.

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 with no wasted words. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary information, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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 complexity (2 optional params, existing output schema, and multiple sibling financial reports), the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent. It lacks context about what a trial balance is and how it differs from balance_sheet.

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 explain the to_date/from_date parameters. The agent has no clue about date format, interpretation, or constraints, making parameter usage ambiguous.

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 resource as a trial balance snapshot and notes it is read-only, but lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'get' or 'retrieve') and does not differentiate from sibling tools like balance_sheet or profit_and_loss.

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 such as balance_sheet or aged_receivables. The agent receives no context about typical use cases.

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