balance_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds some context by enumerating the status values (pending/processing/completed/failed) and returned fields, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how pending/processing uploads behave when listed.

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 sentences, both front-loaded with the essential fact (what is listed, what each entry shows). No filler and no repetition of schema content.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the fields returned. It is nearly complete for a read-only list tool; only ordering/pagination behavior and the relationship to balance_rows are left unstated.

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 only two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'for a year' corroborates the required year parameter but adds no format or range detail, and it is silent on companyId (which the schema already documents as an env-var override).

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 and resource ('List uploaded trial balances') scoped to a year, and even names the returned fields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like balance_rows or balance_analysis, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as balance_rows (rows of a balance) or balance_analysis. The agent must guess that this is the enumeration/entry point versus the detail tool.

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