get_ledger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('Get') and a current balance, but does not state what happens when the exact ledger name is not found, whether matching is case-sensitive, or what 'details' includes.

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?

One sentence communicates the action, object, return scope, and matching criterion with no filler. Every word contributes.

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, single-parameter read tool, the description is largely complete: it states the input requirement and the returned information (details and current balance). However, without an output schema it leaves the exact composition of 'details' somewhat open.

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 documentation coverage is 100%: the name parameter is described as 'Exact ledger name as it appears in Tally.' The tool description adds no new semantic information about the parameter beyond that, so baseline 3 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 names a concrete verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('single ledger account'), and the key selector ('by exact name'), which clearly differentiates it from list_ledgers and other list tools. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.

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 phrase 'by exact name' establishes the condition for using this tool: you already know the precise ledger name. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the prerequisite is clear enough to route an agent to list_ledgers when the name is unknown.

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