snb_get_balance_sheet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about return format (Markdown + JSON in millions CHF), data source, and default date range, which is useful beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 well-structured: concise purpose statement, followed by return details, key positions list, and clear Args section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (multiple optional params, date range, language, many positions), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, defaults, return format, and even provides a curated list of important positions. No gaps.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden. It provides detailed explanations of each parameter, including defaults, example values, and a key list of position IDs with meanings (GFG, D, N, GB, T0/T1), adding significant value 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 retrieves SNB balance sheet data, specifies the cube 'snbbipo', and lists covered positions (assets, liabilities). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming the cube and data type (balance sheet vs. banking balance sheet).

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 provides decent context but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., snb_get_banking_balance_sheet, snb_get_cube_data). It mentions using snb_list_balance_sheet_positions for available IDs, but lacks when-not-to-use or comparative guidance.

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