Get Trial Balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'showing all account balances,' which reinforces the read-only nature but does not elaborate on behavior such as date-range handling (e.g., what happens if no dates are provided, whether it returns both debit and credit columns). The description adds minimal context beyond the annotations, so a 3 is appropriate.

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, short sentence that conveys the core purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, but it might be too sparse given the ambiguity with siblings. Still, it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what a trial balance report contains (e.g., debit/credit balances, account codes) or how it differs from other financial reports. It also does not explain the effect of the date range parameters or the behavior when they are omitted. Given the wide sibling list, more context is needed for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%: both parameters (from_date and to_date) have clear descriptions ('Start date' and 'End date'). The tool description does not add any additional semantics, such as whether the date range is required or what the default behavior is when omitted. Since the schema already documents the parameters fully, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Trial Balance') and clarifies that it shows all account balances. It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling financial reports like get_balance_sheet or get_profit_and_loss, which could lead to confusion. The purpose is clear, but differentiation is left to the name.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many financial reports, and the description does not offer any context about when a trial balance is appropriate (e.g., 'Use for a period-end summary of all account balances') or which other report to choose for a different need. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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