list_ledgers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the sign convention of the returned balances (positive = Cr, negative = Dr), which is real value beyond the schema, but it says nothing about read-only safety, result volume, pagination, or what happens when the active company is omitted.

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?

A single dense sentence with the resource and the return shape front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

For a simple three-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description conveys the key return fields (group, opening/closing balance) and their sign convention, which is the main thing an agent needs. It stops short of explaining volume or default ordering.

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 100%, so all three optional parameters are already documented with examples and semantics (group includes sub-groups, search is case-insensitive, company defaults to active). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb (list) and resource (ledgers) and adds what each row contains: group plus opening/closing balance. An agent can tell it apart from get_master or list_masters, but the description does not explicitly contrast those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance; the agent must infer that this is the read path from the verb 'list' alone. Nothing says when to prefer this over list_masters or get_master.

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