balance_sheet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the data is raw rows with no account column, which tells the agent the shape of the result. It still says nothing about pagination, truncation, or how date filters affect output.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the disambiguation is placed where it matters. It is arguably too terse for the parameter burden it leaves unaddressed, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, with undocumented date parameters and an unclear notion of what 'raw rows' contain, a calling agent lacks enough context to use the tool confidently.

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?

Two parameters (from_date, to_date) exist with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions dates, filtering semantics, or accepted formats. This is a clear gap where the description should have compensated.

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?

Names a specific resource (raw /balance-sheet-transactions rows) and immediately disambiguates it from Manager's Balance Sheet and from reconstructed_trial_balance. The lack of an explicit verb is minor since 'rows (read-only)' implies retrieval. An agent can distinguish it from siblings, though 'raw rows' is somewhat abstract.

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?

Provides explicit negative guidance ('NOT Manager's Balance Sheet') and routes to the alternative ('see reconstructed_trial_balance') for the account-per-row case. There is no positive statement of when this tool is the right choice, so it stops short of a 5.

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