ledger_balances

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Return... balances.' It does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, has performance implications, or what edge cases exist. The verb 'Return' implies a read, but without annotations the agent cannot fully assess side effects or constraints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter read operation.

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?

While the output schema presumably covers return values, the description is sparse on usage context and parameter semantics. It lacks guidance on when to use this tool and what 'account' refers to, making it only minimally complete for a straightforward operation. The existence of an output schema lowers the need to describe return values, but the other gaps prevent a higher score.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the 'account' parameter. The description only says 'for an account,' which merely repeats the parameter name without clarifying the expected format (e.g., ID, name, type) or providing examples. This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema definition.

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 specifies the verb 'Return' and the resource 'double-entry ledger balances' for a given account. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like positions or orders, which deal with different financial data. The purpose is unambiguous and directly named.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource name. This is a minimal level of guidance, as seen in the update_drive example.

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