account_ledger

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful caveat that no native GL-by-account endpoint exists, but omits pagination, ordering, or volume expectations for what could be a large line set.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource definition and appends the rationale in a parenthetical. Efficient with no filler, though the density slightly taxes readability.

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 an output schema and annotations present, the description needn't explain returns or safety, and the no-native-endpoint note adds valuable framing. But the two date parameters remain entirely unexplained, which is a real gap for a filtering tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'account' is a chart-of-accounts key, adding real value beyond the bare 'string' schema, but from_date and to_date receive no explanation at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific resource (structured Lines[] entries for a given Account) and scopes it as the closest available per-account general ledger view. This distinguishes it from siblings like ledger_transactions and general_ledger_summary, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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?

It explains its role as the substitute for a missing native GL-by-account endpoint, which implies when to reach for it. However, it names no sibling alternative and gives no explicit when-not or comparison against ledger_transactions/general_ledger_summary.

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