brc_multi_company_nom_ac_report

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It notes the use of GET requests (implying read-only) but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, mention any rate limits, or describe the grouping or report structure. The transparency is minimal.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. While it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity, it is not verbose and front-loads the essential action.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, yet the description does not explain what a 'grouped nominal accounts report' entails, how the grouping is performed, or what the return format looks like. Given its complexity, more context is needed for complete understanding.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description adds context that the report is created 'for each company,' which aligns with the array parameter. No additional syntax or format details are provided beyond the schema.

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 it creates a grouped nominal accounts report for multiple companies, using a specific API endpoint per company. This distinguishes it from siblings like brc_grouped_nominal_accounts_report (which may be single-company) and brc_list_nominal_accounts (which lists without grouping).

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 implies usage when a report across multiple companies is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like brc_grouped_nominal_accounts_report or brc_list_nominal_accounts. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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