Compute Balance Sheet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description adds that results are derived from journal postings and how accounts are bucketed, which is modest extra context. It does not disclose anything about caching behavior or report completeness (e.g. whether unconfirmed postings are included).

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action and output structure front-loaded, and no filler. Slightly more framing could earn a 5, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only compute tool with full annotation coverage and a fully described two-parameter schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece: the source data and the account grouping. With no output schema, it would help to note the result's shape or filtering, but the tool is largely self-contained.

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%, so both 'fresh' and 'date_to' are already documented with formats and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema supplies, making the baseline 3 the correct score.

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+resource ('Compute balance sheet') and names the input source ('from journal postings'), plus what the output groups (Assets, Liabilities+Equity). This clearly separates it from sibling reports like compute_profit_and_loss or compute_trial_balance. However, it never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 guidance on when to prefer this report over the numerous adjacent compute_* / reconcile_* tools (trial balance, P&L, account balance). The description is purely descriptive of what it computes and gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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