trial_balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'read-only' in the description is largely redundant. The genuinely additive disclosure is the row shape ('no account per row'), which tells the agent what the payload looks like — useful, but no mention of volume, pagination, or filtering behavior.

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 short fragments, front-loaded with the resource and the key disambiguation. Efficient, though the '/trial-balance-transactions' notation and compressed phrasing make it slightly cryptic.

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 structure need not be explained, and the description usefully warns about the missing account column. However, with zero schema description coverage, the date-range parameters and their effect on results are left entirely unaddressed.

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 two date parameters (from_date, to_date) are nullable strings with no enum, format, or description. The description says nothing about how dates are supplied or whether they filter results, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the specific resource (raw /trial-balance-transactions rows) and explicitly distinguishes itself from two neighbors: Manager's Trial Balance report and reconstructed_trial_balance. An agent can route between these without reading any other definition.

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?

Gives the negative case ('NOT Manager's Trial Balance report and no account per row') and names the alternative tool (reconstructed_trial_balance) for the account-per-row need. It does not state a positive when-to-use condition, but the contrast with siblings is unusually explicit.

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