qbo_reports_balance_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the report is retrieved 'as of a given date range'. It does not mention idempotency, side effects, data freshness, or any constraints like whether the report is cached or real-time.

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 extremely concise with two focused sentences. It front-loads the purpose and eliminates unnecessary 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?

Given the simple schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but does not explain return values (e.g., whether totals are included). It lacks details that could help an agent understand the report's structure or limitations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain parameter formats, defaults for accounting_method, or date range interactions.

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 the tool retrieves a Balance Sheet report for a given date range and specifies the content (assets, liabilities, equity). However, it does not differentiate from sibling report tools like qbo_reports_profit_and_loss, leaving the agent to infer when to use this specific report.

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 other report tools (e.g., profit and loss, trial balance). The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or alternatives.

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