brc_grouped_nominal_accounts_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states 'creates a report' but does not clarify if this triggers a write operation or is read-only. It omits details on permissions, rate limits, error behavior (e.g., when grouping fields are unavailable), or whether the report is returned synchronously or stored.

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 sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and key behavior. It front-loads the action and resource. However, it could be slightly restructured to improve readability without adding length.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output format, grouping criteria details, or potential edge cases. A report tool typically benefits from describing what the returned data looks like.

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% (only companyName), and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's string type and example. Since schema already documents the parameter, baseline is 3. The description earns no bonus for parameter context.

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 tool creates a grouped nominal accounts report, identifies the data source (GET /v1/nominalAccounts), and specifies the grouping logic (by account group/type fields). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like brc_list_nominal_accounts (which likely lists without grouping) and brc_multi_company_nom_ac_report (multi-company variant).

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain prerequisites, when grouping may fail, or how it compares to list_nominal_accounts or multi_company_nom_ac_report. The agent must infer usage from the name and context.

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