mfc_ca_getReportsTransitionBalanceSheet

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

The description clearly presents a fetch operation (取得します) and indicates the monthly interval, so the primary read-only behavior is understandable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not disclose response shape, required parameter behavior, or limitations, leaving a noticeable gap.

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 definition is a single focused sentence with no filler, and the core object is front-loaded. It is concise and readable, though it is too minimal to carry the full burden of a six-parameter tool.

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 six parameters, one required, low schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, one sentence is not enough for an agent to know all constraints. An agent would have to guess at parameter semantics and valid values for type.

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 only 17%, with only type documented. The description's '月別' hint relates to type and possibly start_month/end_month, but it does not explain fiscal_year, include_tax, with_sub_accounts, or valid type values, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 verb 取得します and the resource 貸借対照表の推移表（月別） make the operation unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling report tools by naming both balance sheet and monthly transition, separating it from getReportsTransitionProfitLoss and getReportsTrialBalanceBalanceSheet.

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 given about when to call this tool instead of the other getReports* siblings, nor are prerequisites such as fiscal year, office selection, or required report type mentioned. The only implied context is the report type in the name and description.

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