balance_sheet

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses meaningful behavior: the balance sheet equation holds by construction and non-zero unrealized P&L is shown as a synthetic equity row. It also specifies the default date behavior and how it aligns with get_book_summary, giving an agent a clear model of what the tool will do.

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 tightly structured: purpose first, then output behavior, then parameter details. Each sentence adds distinct value, and the parameter explanation is placed in a clearly labeled Args section without unnecessary 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?

With one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers all essential invocation context: date format, defaulting behavior, cross-tool consistency, and the synthetic row caveat. No critical information an agent would need to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 provides no description coverage (0%), but the description fully compensates for the single as_of_date parameter: ISO format, default of today, alignment with get_book_summary's implicit cutoff, and explicit use for historical snapshots. This gives an agent everything needed to use the parameter correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('balance sheet'), plus a date scope. The content details — assets, liabilities, equity, account breakdowns, and A = L + E — clearly distinguish this from report siblings like net_worth and cash_flow.

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 makes the primary use case obvious and provides concrete date-handling guidance, including alignment with get_book_summary's implicit cutoff for cross-tool comparisons. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative report tools, but the context is clear enough.

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