general_ledger_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: it is a single-pass check, it aggregates across all transaction types, and it discloses what the two named outputs are meant to signal — exactly the kind of value-add expected when annotations carry the safety profile.

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 sentences with zero waste. The core operation is front-loaded, and the second sentence immediately explains how to read the two key outputs without preamble.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not owed, and the description does cover the aggregation logic and output interpretation. The gap is the date-range parameters, which are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess how to scope the check.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions to_date or from_date at all — no format, no inclusivity, no default behavior. For a date-range tool where both parameters are the only knobs, the description fails to compensate for the documentation gap 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?

States a specific verb+resource — a single-pass general-ledger consistency check that sums Lines[] Amount (or Debit-Credit) grouped by Account across all transaction types. This is clearly distinct from siblings like trial_balance or account_ledger, though the description never names an alternative to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Usage is implied through interpretation guidance — 'overall_net should be ~0 in a balanced ledger' and 'per_account_net surfaces accounts worth investigating' tell the agent what results mean, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus trial_balance or account_ledger, and no exclusions.

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