trial_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output contents (account balances, total debits/credits, equality) but does not mention side effects, read-only nature, or any constraints. This is adequate for a report tool but lacks depth.

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 sentence, but uses a colon to introduce the proof of balance, which is slightly awkward yet still concise. Every phrase conveys essential information without fluff.

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 explains the return values well: per-account balances, total debits, total credits, and the guarantee of equality. It is complete enough for a simple report tool, though it omits details like time period or formatting.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the report contains, which compensates for the lack of parameter documentation. No parameter details are needed here.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: generating a trial balance showing every account's balance plus total debits and credits. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_balance (single account) and list_accounts (account listing) by emphasizing the equality proof.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like checking ledger balance or when to use get_balance instead, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

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