list_ledgers

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It explicitly indicates a read operation ('Returns') and adds context about the data included (opening and closing balances, account types). It does not disclose limitations like pagination or company filtering, but for a simple list tool, the description is sufficiently transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and provides essential detail (account types and balances) without any fluff or repetition.

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?

The description is mostly complete for a no-parameter list tool, but it does not clarify whether the ledger accounts are for the current company or all companies, which is relevant given a sibling tool list_companies exists. This minor ambiguity prevents a perfect 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?

The input schema has no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the absence of parameters means the baseline of 4 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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Returns all ledger accounts' and lists specific types (parties, banks, cash, expense/income heads), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_companies or list_stock_items. The verb 'Returns' and resource specification are precise, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly provide when-to-use or exclusions, but the clear purpose implies usage when ledger accounts with balances are needed. Sibling tools are not mentioned, so no direct alternatives are referenced, but the intended use is reasonably inferred.

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