get_trial_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the active-company scope and date-scoping behavior, and 'Fetch' signals read-only retrieval. However, it does not state absence of side effects, error behavior if no active company exists, or output format.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, leading with the action and packing the necessary constraints (active company, date) into a compact structure. 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 low-complexity tool with one optional and well-documented parameter, the description supplies the essential context: active company and as-of date. It does not describe return-structure details, but 'Trial Balance report' is a standard report concept and no output schema exists to add more.

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 only parameter, asOfDate, is fully documented in the schema with format and default behavior, giving 100% schema coverage. The description's 'as of a given date' merely echoes that semantic without adding new detail, so 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?

States a specific action ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('the Trial Balance report'), and scope ('active company ... as of a given date'). The explicit report name distinguishes it from sibling report tools such as get_balance_sheet and get_profit_and_loss.

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?

Provides clear usage context: this is the tool to call when the Trial Balance for the active company at a specific date is needed. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the report type makes selection unambiguous.

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