brc_get_customer_opening_balance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Gets', implying a read operation, but does not mention authorization requirements, error cases, or side effects. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the essential action. However, it is too brief and misses opportunities to add value without becoming verbose.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema) and numerous sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the opening balance represents, how it is calculated, or how the response is structured.

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% with descriptions for both parameters ('companyName' and 'itemId'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the action ('Gets') and the resource ('customer's opening balance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like brc_get_supplier_opening_balance or brc_get_customer. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning of 'opening balance'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as brc_list_customer_op_bal_trans, which lists opening balance transactions. The description lacks any context about preconditions or frequency of use.

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