Get balance sheet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the HTTP endpoint and the year/period scope but does not disclose additional behaviors like return format, pagination, or any limitations. Since annotations cover the key behavioral traits, 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 short and gets to the point. It opens with the tool's purpose, then provides a one-sentence summary and an endpoint reference. Minor redundancy between 'Get balance sheet' and 'Get a balance sheet report' but overall no wasted words.

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 read-only report tool with complete schema and annotations, the description provides the essential purpose and parameters. However, it lacks any mention of when to use this versus the sibling get_column_balance_report, and it does not clarify what the returned report contains. Given the sibling ambiguity, this is a gap.

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%, so all parameters (period, year_to, year_from, administration) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('balance sheet report') with scope ('for a given year range and period'), and the tool name matches its purpose. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_column_balance_report, but the term 'balance sheet' provides enough semantic separation.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_column_balance_report. The description only states what the tool does, not when to prefer it or what context it applies to. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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