outstanding_balances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation via 'Returns' and offers group options, but it does not disclose potential edge cases such as empty results, sorting, or error behavior. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and additional usage detail. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description provides essential information: return type, group selection, and example usage. It lacks output structure details but that is acceptable given the implied return list.

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 schema already covers the parameter 'group' with a full description matching the tool description, so the description adds little new semantic value. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource 'ledgers in a given account group' with the additional detail of 'current closing balance.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_ledgers by focusing on balances within a group.

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?

It states the default group (Sundry Debtors) and instructs how to get payables via 'Sundry Creditors,' providing clear context. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple query tool.

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