get_daily_ledger

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

The description states 'Read-only' at the end, clearly indicating non-destructive behavior. It also describes the output structure (one row per line with specific fields) and the effect of the groupByEntry parameter. However, it lacks information about pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which would enhance transparency.

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 concise (6 sentences) and front-loaded, starting with the main purpose, then listing returned fields, followed by usage constraints and option. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, input constraints, output structure, and usage options. It provides enough information for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), providing baseline. The description adds significant value by explaining that groupByEntry groups lines into full entries with debit/credit totals, that the range must not exceed 1 year, and it lists the returned fields (entryNumber, line, timestamp, type, description, account, debit, credit) which are not in 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 explicitly states the tool retrieves the daily ledger (journal/asientos) between two Unix timestamps, specifies it's from the Accounting API, and lists the returned fields. It distinguishes itself as the authoritative source for balance-sheet and tax-return figures, differentiating it from sibling tools that deal with individual entities.

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 clear usage context, including a maximum range of 1 year and an optional groupByEntry parameter to nest lines into full double-entry entries. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand its scope.

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