Compute Trial Balance

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: without date_to, all postings including future-dated ones are included, with period.to treated as unbounded. This is a meaningful edge case an agent needs to know.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states what the tool computes and shows, the second flags the critical date_to behavior. Information is front-loaded and there is no fluff.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and the schema documenting all three parameters, the description fills the remaining gaps: what the report contains and how a missing date_to behaves. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough about the return concept for an agent to reason about the result.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of omitting date_to (future-dated postings are counted), which gives real semantic weight to the parameter. It does not add detail about date_from or fresh beyond what the schema already says.

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 and resource ('Compute trial balance') and clarifies the exact output: debit/credit totals and balance for each account. It also anchors the data source ('from journal postings'), which helps distinguish it from report siblings like compute_balance_sheet or compute_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?

Usage context is implied by the tool name and the phrase 'from journal postings', but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this over alternatives such as compute_account_balance or compute_balance_sheet. The description does not name sibling tools or state exclusions.

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