Compute Trial Balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the default period is unbounded and future-dated postings will be counted when date_to is omitted (period.to = 'unbounded'), which is exactly the kind of default-behavior disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and output shape, then the one non-obvious default. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so at a high level ('debit/credit totals and balance for each account'), while covering the key default. Minor gaps remain (e.g. how date_from interacts with date_to, whether results are cached), but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the semantics of omitting date_to (every posting counts, including future-dated ones), which the schema's terse 'Period end (YYYY-MM-DD)' does not convey.

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 precise verb and resource (compute trial balance), names the source (journal postings) and the output granularity (debit/credit totals and balance per account). That source-and-output framing separates it from siblings such as compute_balance_sheet or compute_account_balance without needing to name them.

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 date_to caveat is effectively usage guidance for the common case (omitting it includes future-dated postings), which is genuinely useful. However, it never says when to pick this report over compute_balance_sheet, compute_profit_and_loss, or compute_account_balance, so the alternative-selection guidance is absent.

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