balance_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description discloses it's a read/list operation and what fields it returns (status, month, account count, source software), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention whether results are paginated, ordered, filtered by companyId, or what the exact response shape/size is. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap.

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 single-sentence description is efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes the relevant output fields in a parenthetical, which is compact. No fluff or repetition. It could be slightly more structured with the information it provides, but it's clean and readable.

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 this is a straightforward list tool with 2 parameters (both documented in schema), no output schema required, and no nested objects, the description is moderately complete. It covers what the tool does and what it returns. However, for a read-oriented tool it doesn't mention potential statuses definitions, pagination, or result ordering, and the lack of annotations leaves some behavioral questions unanswered.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (year and companyId) documented in the schema. The description adds the context that the tool lists by year and shows upload status, which complements the schema's year parameter meaning. However, the description doesn't add significant semantics beyond the schema - it mentions 'for a year' (matching the year param) but doesn't detail companyId behavior beyond what the schema's override note already provides.

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 states the tool lists uploaded trial balances for a year, with a specific verb+resource (list balances). It enumerates the fields shown (upload status, month, account count, source software), which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'balance_rows', 'balance_reprocess', or 'balance_delete' tools, so some ambiguity remains about scope.

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 the tool is for viewing trial balances by year, which provides context for the 'year' parameter. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether a company must be selected), and no exclusion criteria. The context is clear but there are no explicit when/when-not statements.

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