siigo_get_trial_balance_by_third

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets' a report without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is. It lacks details on data retrieval, permissions, or system impact, making it insufficient for a tool with complex parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, slightly reducing its effectiveness despite good structure.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the report's output, usage context, or behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly in a system with many siblings.

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 parameters like 'account_start', 'year', and 'includes_tax_difference' are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a third-party focus, which doesn't clarify parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Get trial balance by third party report' states the action (get) and resource (trial balance report), but it's vague about what 'by third party' means and doesn't differentiate from sibling 'siigo_get_trial_balance'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about the report's nature or scope.

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 like 'siigo_get_trial_balance' or other financial reporting tools. The description implies a third-party focus but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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