holded_get_balance_sheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries a heavier burden. It adds useful behavioral context: balances are accumulated from the start of the fiscal year and accounts are organized into current/non-current categories. It does not explicitly disclose read-only behavior, response format, or potential limitations, but the 'get_' naming and report-generation framing suggest a safe read operation.

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 three concise sentences with no filler: it states the main output, the classification scheme, and the accumulation period. The most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a parameterless report-generation tool, the description sufficiently covers what is produced, how it is categorized, and the accounting period involved. It could mention return format, but no output schema exists and the accounting definition is adequate for selecting and invoking 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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter-semantic burden for the description to carry. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately avoids unnecessary parameter-related text.

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 clearly identifies the deliverable ('balance de situación') and the source accounting framework ('Plan General Contable'), and explains the grouping into assets, equity, and liabilities. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings such as profit-loss, VAT, and document tools.

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 communicates the core use case: generating a balance sheet with accumulated balances from the start of the fiscal year. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like holded_get_profit_loss, but the specialized output makes the intended usage inferable.

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