balance_analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it explains data availability (trial-balance sections show hasData=false until balances are uploaded; aging, concentration, and profitTaxEstimate come from invoice data) and discloses limitations of profitTaxEstimate (information only, from invoices alone, real tax lower), plus the X-Company header requirement.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. However, the description is a single dense run-on sentence with semicolons that could be better structured into sections for readability. While the extensive enumeration is justified by the lack of an output schema, the delivery is not optimally concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (many computed financial ratios) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all major output sections, caveats about data sources, the X-Company header requirement, and limitations of profitTaxEstimate. An agent has enough information to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schemas already document both parameters (year and companyId) with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or behavior beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (balance analysis), and enumerates the returned indicators in detail. The purpose is unmistakable, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like balance_list or balance_rows, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage by stating it returns analysis for a year, but it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no named alternatives. The prerequisite of X-Company header is noted but is not usage guidance.

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