balance_sheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses an important behavioral detail: that A=L+E holds by construction and non-zero unrealized P&L appears as a synthetic equity row. This is genuinely valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose details like performance characteristics, data freshness, or permissions, though the disclosed construction detail is substantial.

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 efficiently structured with a summary line, a details paragraph, and a well-organized Args section. Every sentence provides value. Slightly verbose in the default-date explanation but the rationale for tying to get_book_summary is operationally important, so it earns its place.

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 an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), only 1 parameter, and no annotations, the description covers the essential semantic territory well. It explains the date parameter thoroughly, discloses the synthetic equity behavior, and provides cross-tool context. Minor gap: doesn't mention how it relates to or differs from net_worth or get_balance among financial reporting siblings.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only defines as_of_date as a nullable string with null default. The description compensates excellently by explaining the ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD), the default behavior (today), the rationale for matching get_book_summary's cutoff, and when to pass an explicit date. This adds meaningful semantic value beyond the bare 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 the tool generates a balance sheet as of a specific date, showing assets, liabilities, and equity with account breakdowns. It distinguishes itself from sibling reporting tools by specifying the date-based snapshot nature and the accounting identity (A=L+E), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly explains when to use an explicit as_of_date (historical snapshots) versus defaulting, and connects the default behavior to get_book_summary's implicit cutoff for cross-tool comparison. It provides clear context for usage but doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool versus net_worth or get_balance.

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