freee_get_trial_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool is efficient and retrieves aggregated balances in one call, but omits critical details such as whether the operation is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The lack of such information leaves significant transparency gaps.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core action in the first sentence and useful context in the second. It avoids redundancy and every phrase contributes value. It is concise without being terse, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the response looks like, whether results are paginated, error handling, or any flags or sorting options. The description covers the basic purpose but leaves significant gaps for effective invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage on all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra context beyond the schema, only noting support for monthly/quarterly/annual periods, which is already implied by the startMonth and endMonth parameters. It does not introduce new semantic understanding.

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 clearly identifies the tool as 'Get trial balance report' and specifies it retrieves aggregated account balances for all accounts in one API call. It provides concrete use cases (financial analysis, balance verification, period comparisons) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that might handle individual transactions or different report types.

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 description states 'Use for financial analysis, balance verification, and period comparisons without processing individual transactions,' implying it is suitable for aggregated data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly compare it with siblings like freee_get_general_ledger or freee_get_balance_sheet, leaving usage boundaries implicit.

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