qbo_reports_trial_balance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It claims 'as of a given date' but the schema requires a date range (start_date and end_date), creating a contradiction. The description does not disclose read-only behavior, impact of accounting method, or response 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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences: first states the core purpose, second explains the content. No 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?

No output schema exists, but the description only vaguely mentions 'lists all accounts with balances.' Missing details on response format, pagination, effect of accounting_method, and the contradiction between 'as of a given date' and the required date range leaves the agent underinformed.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds confusion by implying a single date while the schema requires two dates. The description does not clarify the purpose of the date range or how accounting_method affects the report, adding little meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 Trial Balance report, listing all accounts with debit/credit balances for verification. The verb 'Get' and specific resource 'Trial Balance report' distinguish it from sibling report tools like profit and loss or balance sheet.

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 description implies usage for verifying books balance, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other report tools (e.g., general ledger, profit and loss) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. Context-dependent but lacking exclusions or alternatives.

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